Is Election Salvation ?

[Rippon]

First, It seems like you can make statements without impunity, and then act as if you are emotionally scarred forever if one returns the favor.

Don't use a word if you don't know its meaning. With impunity means there is no danger of punishment. Without impunity means the opposite.

 

[DHK]

Don't use a word if you don't know its meaning. With impunity means there is no danger of punishment. Without impunity means the opposite.

Thanks. I'll take your word for it and edit my post.

 

[kyredneck]

Where did you get that from, Archangel?...
.

Nope.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2173654#post2173654

 

[DHK]

Nope.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2173654#post2173654

It is your opinion. Not worth much without evidence.
You say your not a Calvinist, but that is a typical Calvinist answer. It holds no water. I ask you the same thing I ask others--why don't other reliable translations put it that way? Are they all ignorant?
This is the classic "I am right and everyone else is wrong" regardless of the evidence.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Bias?" Funny! Quite plainly: The Greek text is the Greek text. Your "bias" dictates that you have to take that word as "whosoever"--even in contradiction to the text itself. Now, losing the "whosoever" would require a major reevaluation of the text and your own presuppositions. So, the question is this: Will you conform the Bible to your understanding or allow your understanding to be conformed to Scripture?

I'm still noticing, however, that you're only checking translations--you're not going to the Greek text itself. That speaks volumes.

Truthfully, you have no facility to properly adjudicate who's right. It may be that the translators were incorrect. Even if they were or weren't, you'd have no way confirm or deny their arguments. All you can do is "second hand" (with apologies to Ayn Rand); you can't evaluate these things for yourself.

So, that speaks volumes about a lack of facility with the Greek. Now, having no facility with the Greek isn't necessarily a problem. Declaring me to be wrong--when you have no way to determine for yourself whether I am or not--is.

The Archangel

:applause: yes...any he cannot read Calvin correctly in the english either:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

2,000 years of translations are wrong and Archangel's translation is right.
Is there any need to check his Greek? No.
When the "I am right and everyone is wrong" attitude is presented, something is wrong.

It is you who resist God's word once again.AA has given the translation from the greek...He has asked you to show from the greek where what he offered is wrong...If you cannot do it...you have nothing to say at all.

Trying to demean him does not make your point..it just shows your unteachable spirit. Steaver also betrays a wrong view of scripture...shocking...lol

 

[DHK]

It is you who resist God's word once again.AA has given the translation from the greek...He has asked you to show from the greek where what he offered is wrong...If you cannot do it...you have nothing to say at all.

Trying to demean him does not make your point..it just shows your unteachable spirit. Steaver also betrays a wrong view of scripture...shocking...lol

54 men translated the KJV, and hundreds of other men were involved in the translations of other reliable versions of the Bible. All of them contradict what Arch says, putting Arch in the wrong.
So how do you know that what Arch gave you is reliable?
I have heard him spout off Greek before when it suits his purpose--his purpose to defend Calvinism.

"He has given the translation from the Greek"

Wow!! Let's now bow and adore him!!

NOT! He has given flawed information that contradict what the rest of the Bible teaches, that is what he has given. Wake up people!!

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK;

"He has given the translation from the Greek"

Wow!! Let's now bow and adore him!!

NOT! He has given flawed information that contradict what the rest of the Bible teaches, that is what he has given. Wake up people!!

this shows you have no real desire for truth....once again ...no one can force you:wavey::wavey:

 

[DHK]

DHK;


this shows you have no real desire for truth....once again ...no one can force you:wavey::wavey:

No, it shows that common sense prevails, and that is something that you are ignoring. You are taking as gospel truth a man's word, without any verification that it is true. That is just foolishness.

I once heard from a very Godly pastor: Don't believe what I preach to you, just because it is me that is preaching it. I might be the devil in disguise. Search the Scriptures and find out for yourself.
Have you checked for yourself. How do you know what he is saying is true?

 

[Rippon]

I once heard from a very Godly

The word "godly" is an adjective --no capitalization. The man isn't God. But it even be silly to express :"Jesus was Godly."

pastor: Don't believe what I preach to you, just because it is me that is preaching it. I might be the devil in disguise. Search the Scriptures and find out for yourself.

Your cheese has slid off your cracker.

Have you checked for yourself. How do you know what he is saying is true?

Well, AA is scholarly. He has an honorable track record on the BB. Saying anything more commendable may embarrass him.

 

[DHK]

The word "godly" is an adjective --no capitalization. The man isn't God. But it even be silly to express :"Jesus was Godly."

Grammar police, eh?

Your cheese has slid off your cracker.

It illustrated Acts 17:11--Paul commending the Bereans.

Well, AA is scholarly. He has an honorable track record on the BB. Saying anything more commendable may embarrass him.

He isn't always right. No one is.

 

[Yeshua1]

Then in John, applying the "everyone" who looks" parallel, this is what Jesus says:
[FONT=&quot]John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.[/FONT]

Everyone that believes in Jesus will not perish but have eternal life.
We all are bitten by the serpent, Satan. We all are in sin. We all need salvation. We all need Christ. We all need to look to Him and be saved. This is the parallel. There is no one outside of Christ that can be saved--no one.

We all agree on that truth, as indeed there has been given unto us no other name by which ,and must get saved by....

We also have to realise that sinners do not seek after that cure, but those whom God draws unto Jesus for that shall indeed all get saved by him...

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

No, it shows that common sense prevails, and that is something that you are ignoring. You are taking as gospel truth a man's word, without any verification that it is true. That is just foolishness.

Have you checked for yourself. How do you know what he is saying is true?[/QUOTE]
What is foolish is your objections to truth
yes ...I know several greek teachers who have verified it and here from the interlinear.....

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm

AA said;

Here is the passage in Greek:
16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλʼ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The relevant portion of the passage : πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν. Here's the passage portion transliteration: pas ho pisteuon eis auton,

Whether this portion is translate as "whosoever believes" (the wrong way) or "all the ones believing" (the right way) hinges on the definite article before pisteuown. Here's where we go into the deep end of the pool:

here it is
John 3 Interlinear

16 3779 [e]
16 Houtōs
16 Οὕτως
16 thus
16 Adv

1063 [e]
gar
γὰρ
indeed
Conj

25 [e]
ēgapēsen
ἠγάπησεν
loved
V-AIA-3S

3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
-
Art-NMS



3956 [e]
pasπᾶς
everyone
Adj-NMS3588 [e]
ho
ὁ
-
Art-NMS

4100 [e]
pisteuōnπιστεύων
believing
V-PPA-NMS

1519 [e]
eis
εἰς
in
Prep

846 [e]
auton
αὐτὸν ,
him
PPro-AM3S

 

[Iconoclast]

For any who wonder of the importance of biblical training in languages as AA has spoken for...consider this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1ab4vvFI0

 

[DHK]

For any who wonder of the importance of biblical training in languages as AA has spoken for...consider this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg1ab4vvFI0

I don't play down Biblical training with or without languages. How many years of Greek and Hebrew have you studied Icon?

Here is a good example that you might want to think about.
The NWT (J.W.) translation of John 1:1 reads:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
--We say heresy. It is not a good translation. It is not what the Greek says.
But here is what AA will tell you.
The J.W.'s have made a perfectly good translation. They have utilized the anarthrous construction of the Greek article.

[FONT=&quot]John 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[/FONT]

There is no article before theos or God so we don't supply one. However (I have been told) it would not be improper to supply an indefinite article here to make sense to the English reader.

Why is it wrong? Because it denies the deity of Christ. It denies the rest of the Bible. It goes against the context of the rest of the passage.
We know it is wrong.

AA can see that the JW translation is allowable but wrong.
He should be able to see that he is doing the same thing in John 3:16--perhaps allowable but wrong.
Wrong because of context.
Wrong because of the totality of Scripture.
Wrong because of what Christ has said elsewhere.
Wrong because of the hundreds of the other translations, both in English and in other languages, disagree with him.

Scholarship isn't always right.
Do you know who Peter Ruckman was? Find out.
He was a very educated man. What did he believe? Find out.
You should know. He knew Greek; studied the Biblical languages.
Scholarship doesn't mean you know the truth.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't play down Biblical training with or without languages. How many years of Greek and Hebrew have you studied Icon?

Here is a good example that you might want to think about.
The NWT (J.W.) translation of John 1:1 reads:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
--We say heresy. It is not a good translation. It is not what the Greek says.
But here is what AA will tell you.
The J.W.'s have made a perfectly good translation. They have utilized the anarthrous construction of the Greek article.

[FONT=&quot]John 1:1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος[/FONT]

There is no article before theos or God so we don't supply one. However (I have been told) it would not be improper to supply an indefinite article here to make sense to the English reader.

Why is it wrong? Because it denies the deity of Christ. It denies the rest of the Bible. It goes against the context of the rest of the passage.
We know it is wrong.

AA can see that the JW translation is allowable but wrong.
He should be able to see that he is doing the same thing in John 3:16--perhaps allowable but wrong.
Wrong because of context.
Wrong because of the totality of Scripture.
Wrong because of what Christ has said elsewhere.
Wrong because of the hundreds of the other translations, both in English and in other languages, disagree with him.

Scholarship isn't always right.
Do you know who Peter Ruckman was? Find out.
He was a very educated man. What did he believe? Find out.
You should know. He knew Greek; studied the Biblical languages.
Scholarship doesn't mean you know the truth.

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about. And, how dare you put words in my mouth, presuming what I would say? Your ignorance is manifold.

Here's the the passage:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.​

The question of translation comes in the last clause: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

The Jehovah's Witness translation is wrong not because proper theology contradicts their theology. Instead, their translation is wrong because, like you, they don't know Greek...or if they do, again like you, they let their presuppositions trump the text.

First, let me point out what you've gotten absolutely wrong:

1. You use the word "anarthrous" and call it a "construction." In Greek, when something is said to be anarthrous, it is presented with out the article. There is no "construction."
2. What is even more funny, and sad, is that in highlighting the word θεὸς, which is, by the way, an anarthrous noun, you also highlight the word καὶ. καὶ isn't an article and it has nothing to do with any "construction." καὶ is a conjunction.
3. Greek nouns do not need an article. Even if a noun is anarthrous, the article is implied. An anarthrous article is not--by default--indefinite.

I'll bet you can't even tell me what the peculiar thing is about the words θεὸς and λόγος, can you?

I'll bet you can't tell me why θεὸς ,being written first in the clause, is translated at the end of the sentence, can you?

Here's why the Jehovah's Witness translation is wrong:

In this clause in particular, the expression καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
is using the verb ἦν (the third-person imperfect indicative of εἰμί, the verb "to be") as equative--it is equating θεὸς and λόγος.

1. In Greek, the word order isn't like English. Greek can, and does, put words in certain places to emphasize things.
2. In this particular clause, both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case. That's strange, considering the nominative case is the case by which the subject of the clause is denoted.
3. In Greek, when you have two nominative nouns in the same clause separative by an equative verb, the definite article denotes which is the subject. The anarthrous noun is the predicate nominative.

"The word was God" is the only proper translation. "Word" and "God" are equated to each other by the construction.

If you had any acumen for Greek or had studied it even in the least, you'd know this.

So, the JW translation is neither right nor viable nor allowable. It isn't our theology that rules translation; it is the rules of grammar.

Thus endeth the lesson...

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

You simply have no earthly idea what you're talking about. And, how dare you put words in my mouth, presuming what I would say? Your ignorance is manifold.

Here's the the passage:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.​

The question of translation comes in the last clause: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

The Jehovah's Witness translation is wrong not because proper theology contradicts their theology. Instead, their translation is wrong because, like you, they don't know Greek...or if they do, again like you, they let their presuppositions trump the text.

First, let me point out what you've gotten absolutely wrong:

1. You use the word "anarthrous" and call it a "construction." In Greek, when something is said to be anarthrous, it is presented with out the article. There is no "construction."
2. What is even more funny, and sad, is that in highlighting the word θεὸς, which is, by the way, an anarthrous noun, you also highlight the word καὶ. καὶ isn't an article and it has nothing to do with any "construction." καὶ is a conjunction.
3. Greek nouns do not need an article. Even if a noun is anarthrous, the article is implied. An anarthrous article is not--by default--indefinite.

I'll bet you can't even tell me what the peculiar thing is about the words θεὸς and λόγος, can you?

I'll bet you can't tell me why θεὸς ,being written first in the clause, is translated at the end of the sentence, can you?

Here's why the Jehovah's Witness translation is wrong:

In this clause in particular, the expression καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
is using the verb ἦν (the third-person imperfect indicative of εἰμί, the verb "to be") as equative--it is equating θεὸς and λόγος.

1. In Greek, the word order isn't like English. Greek can, and does, put words in certain places to emphasize things.
2. In this particular clause, both θεὸς and λόγος are in the nominative case. That's strange, considering the nominative case is the case by which the subject of the clause is denoted.
3. In Greek, when you have two nominative nouns in the same clause separative by an equative verb, the definite article denotes which is the subject. The anarthrous noun is the predicate nominative.

"The word was God" is the only proper translation. "Word" and "God" are equated to each other by the construction.

If you had any acumen for Greek or had studied it even in the least, you'd know this.

So, the JW translation is neither right nor viable nor allowable. It isn't our theology that rules translation; it is the rules of grammar.

Thus endeth the lesson...

The Archangel

For them to get their wrong theology, they have to ignore the Grammar of the text, and reconstruct it to teach and mean that Jesus was a god, but that voids out the intent of how John actually wrote it in the Greek...

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.