Easy: Deflection as a defense.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The eternal Hell
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Easy: Deflection as a defense.
The same could be said to you.
If you are convinced of your positions, defend them. Convince the naysayers that they are wrong. Contend for what you believe.
True, I should have known it is his MO after all. I just thought maybe I had missed something.
Wasn't that pretty much all you had to say?
(understand what I'm trying to tell you?)
John,
The link you posted; that author is wrong for the following reasons:
20 different translations of Prov 11:30; 18 of them identify the conjunction as "and," which is inclusive (directly contradicting your author who states the verse is a contrast). 1 of them doesn't use a conjunction. Only the Holman uses the conjunction "but" identifying a contrast.
The author indicates the context of the passage is contrasting; but verse 29 is translated using an inclusive conjunction, including in the Holman.
Your author attempts to say that the context is negative; however, to follow that line of thought, one must read the word for "winneth" as "take." Then you have to look at the next primary word, and you have the choice of "soul," "self," or "living being." The final primary word, following what your author says, must then be "wise," or possibly "shrewd" or "crafty." Thus, to follow what your author indicates, the possible translations are:
takes souls shrewd/wise
takes self shrewd/wise
Thus, your author tries to show that this is a negative statement; but the only possible viewpoint is actually a positive one (when the chapter is about preventing foolishness, who can argue that in conjunction with the fruit of the righteous, taking souls or controlling yourself is a bad thing?).
You'd have been better off comparing this one author, from a message board, against multiple published authors. Your author prints a lot of stuff that makes him look like he knows what he's talking about; but the majority of research and study disagrees with him.
The same thing goes for what I posted above. I'm just another internet author; but hey, what I wrote has to be true, 'cause it's on the internet, right?
The link you posted; that author is wrong for the following reasons:
20 different translations of Prov 11:30; 18 of them identify the conjunction as "and," which is inclusive (directly contradicting your author who states the verse is a contrast). 1 of them doesn't use a conjunction. Only the Holman uses the conjunction "but" identifying a contrast.
The author indicates the context of the passage is contrasting; but verse 29 is translated using an inclusive conjunction, including in the Holman.
Your author attempts to say that the context is negative; however, to follow that line of thought, one must read the word for "winneth" as "take." Then you have to look at the next primary word, and you have the choice of "soul," "self," or "living being." The final primary word, following what your author says, must then be "wise," or possibly "shrewd" or "crafty." Thus, to follow what your author indicates, the possible translations are:
takes souls shrewd/wise
takes self shrewd/wise
Thus, your author tries to show that this is a negative statement; but the only possible viewpoint is actually a positive one (when the chapter is about preventing foolishness, who can argue that in conjunction with the fruit of the righteous, taking souls or controlling yourself is a bad thing?).
You'd have been better off comparing this one author, from a message board, against multiple published authors. Your author prints a lot of stuff that makes him look like he knows what he's talking about; but the majority of research and study disagrees with him.
The same thing goes for what I posted above. I'm just another internet author; but hey, what I wrote has to be true, 'cause it's on the internet, right?
You were given some details about a disagreement with your premise; instead of debating those details, you went a completely different way and dismissed the one who disagreed with you. You then posted a link to someone else's work. You never actually provided a debate or discussion with the person who disagreed with you.
Then I disagreed with you, in the same manner you disagreed with another ... and it went straight over your head....
"Lots." "Few." "Most."
Those are invalid qualifiers that beg the question. In order for them to be true, everyone has to agree with each of them. Until you can actually provide numbers that support "lots," "few," and "most," then all they are is conjecture -- not fact.
In fact, I've never personally been in a church that didn't preach hell. So I could just as easily say lots of churches DO preach on hell. But that wouldn't be accurate, because I've only visited around 50 or so since I was saved in 1995.
Not true. They're not trying to get you to avoid preaching about hell; they're trying to get you to avoid causing someone who is already in emotional anguish more emotional turmoil and possible spiritual damage.
Are you planning on street preaching in your normal manner? Then consider carefully: Here's a woman who may have been pressured by her mother/father, or her husband/boyfriend, to do something she doesn't really want to do. Now here's a guy yelling at her that she's going to hell.
First off, you're not the judge of her soul status. If she professes to be saved, and in a moment of weakness succombs to an immoral action, that's between her and God. By what you've said here, DAVID should have went to hell.
Further, consider the actions of Nathan in that situation: He didn't preach to David that David was going to hell; he asked David what should happen to a man who committed a similar act, and thus David was made aware of the immorality of his actions. Nathan didn't condemn; he allowed David to condemn himself.
Well...in my experience, train tracks are narrow things, while roads are much wider; and doesn't scripture say something about a narrow path versus a wide road? (but I understand what you're saying)
I would never yell at people they are going to hell. What I would do is preach bible verses on abortion, go through the law, verses in Romans and many other places, and then preach on hell. I would never point at people, but I would make it clear without Christ one is headed to the burning hell.
Jesus had many hard sayings and so did te apostles. Read Hell on trial as it catagories every single verse in both testaments on hell. You will find that jesus preached hell in many more places than just Luke 16 as many falsely assume.
You will find that none of the apostles preached on Hell. If you are going to use Jesus as your model preacher you ought to be reaching out to Jews and telling them the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand! And to repent! Speak in a lot of parables too.
Call it a draw. GreekTim will have to tell us who is right and who is wrong given your post and that of Reformed Baptist which is here.
Proverbs 11:30 "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."
That doesn't surprise me, but reading this verse in context actually suggests that "and he that winneth souls is wise." is something negative, each of these couplet in this portion present a positive and negative - I don't see why this one would be any different.
Reading וְלֹקֵחַ נְפָשׁוֹת חָמָס. one could render the line, “But a violent man is a murderer” with the vocalization חֹמֵס. Several factors weigh against the traditional “he who wins souls is wise.”
1) לָקַח נֶפֶשׁ elsewhere always means to “kill” and never to “win souls” in a positive sense of influencing a person for good (Ps 31:14 [Eng. v. 15]; 1 Sam 24:12 [Eng. v. 11]; 1 Kgs 19:14; Prov 1:19).
2) the emendation from חָכָם to חָמָס involves a minor and common type of scribal error.
3) the emendation is supported by the LXX rendition παρανόμων.
4) the reading “violent” here is echoed by “brutish” (בָעַר) in 12:1.
5) this translation fits with the nature of the text
Of course, I am sure those 'baptists' to whom you refer would probably reject my reasoning out of hand - but that doesn't mean you (or others) won't it useful
Last edited by a moderator:
Jas 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
Jas 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way (shall save a soul from death), and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Save a soul, win a soul difference please
Out of context. The passage is speaking on brotherly correction and bringing back someone whom has wandered back to the faith. This may include a brother whom has fallen into sin.