What Sins Are Christians Capable Of?

SFIC I guess we can turn this into a KJV debate, because look at what these translations have to say:

NASB - Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

ASV - Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is.

NKJV - Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

NRSV - Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

ESV - Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

CLV - Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears [1] we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Actually not many translations translate it as sons. So I think there is pretty good evidence children is the correct translation.

 

Let's see...

These are the same translations that remove the blood from many verses, remove the virgin birth, remove the deity of Christ, remove verses and whole passages.

Like I am supposed to trust them... right.

 

Touchy, touchy...so I quoted the wrong Scripture. Did you bother to read the post? If so you would have seen that I said exactly what you are saying.

We only overcome Satan through God's grace. And that is God doing for you what He requires of you and then gives you credit as if you did it yourself.

So keep trying to find the loop hole. I know you thought you had me on that, one but I am not above making mistakes, so forgive me misquote, but the idea is still there.

 

Yeah you can trust them as much as you can trust the KJV which mistranslates words as well. Check out the kingdom of heaven in the book of Matthew. Heaven is actually plural in every instance and should be translated the kingdom of the heavens.

So if you want to keep putting your trust in fallible men have at it. I'll take all the resources available and then allow the Spirit to use them to teach me and lead me.

The KJV is a good translation, but that is all it is another translation.

 

The important thing was would their lamps still be lit when the bridegroom arrived. The answer was no for the foolish virgins. This is analagous to what will our relationship with Christ be when He returns not before.

 

I'm dancing around scripture? You make a statement about people losing their soul and then when I question you about it you say let's don't focus on the particulars. I wouldn't call that a minor point people losing their souls.

Anyway, yes I did use Strong's concordance on whther the word meant eternal. Crosswalk.com calls Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the most complete, easy-to-use, and understandable concordance for studying the original languages of the Bible. Combining the text of the King James Bible with the power of the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons, any student or pastor can gain a clear understanding of the Word to enrich their study.

So, unless you can convince me that you have a stronger background than the writer of Strong's I choose them as the better source. The not talking about New Age. We're talking about eternity.

 

And this is exactly the point!

It's about relationship, not spiritual salvation.

It's talking about what these 10 virgins did!

(I also don't think there's a single instance in which "virgin" refers to something that is specifically unclean, so I don't think that someone headed to the lake of fire would be referred to as a "virgin".)

5 virgins prepared themselves; 5 did not.

 

I use Strong's quite regularly to search for words by number, but the problem is, it's only a concordance, not a lexicon. But, as a concordance, it's tied in with one particular translation. Young's is a better concordance overall, but it's not available in electronic format, that I'm aware of. The NRSV concordance is even better, or for the best concordance, use the Word Study Greek English New Testament (WSGENT) for the NT. For the OT , the best choice would be The Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament by John Kohlenberger & James Swanson.

But if you want to know what a word means, turn to a lexicon. The BDAG is the standard for Greek scholars, and the Louw and Nida would be a close runner up. The BDAG does not limit itself to the NT, but covers the Greek language itself. There is no hidden agenda that it is trying to promote.

But, even among Greek scholars, there is no concensus. Many of them say, "It means age-lasting, which by association obviously means 'eternal'". That's why some of the best literal translations of the NT simply transliterate it; to avoid the argument. The rest of the literal translations to translate it as a variation on "age" instead of putting a spin on it that the language itself will not bear.

If you hold "aionios" to be "eternal", you will end up with many, many contradictions within Scriptures. Taking the KJV (which translates it 5 different ways; no consistency there), I can "prove" both OSAS and that salvation can be lost or forfeited. I can back up both sides of the argument in a way that seems ironclad.

But, when you look at "aionios" as what it really is, you see that your everlasting salvation (only God is eternal) is secure, but your salvation in the age to come is not.

One you have to work for, one is a gift. If works are in view, you will always find that aionios is in view as well.

So, you either have to turn a blind eye to some Scriptures and write them off as a "mystery", or you have to twist Scripture. Such as saying that a lamp can go out without being lit or that you can lose something that you never had. Or that you don't have to have fruit to prove you're saved, but if you don't have fruit, you're not saved.

Here is how a few literal translations translate John 3:16:

John 3:16 For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,—that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age-abiding. REV

John 3:16 For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. CLV

John 3:16 for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. YLT

John 3:16 For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages. WNT (I think Weymouth errs, because it's singular, not plural.)

 

No, actually it's talking about salvation.

 

As explained in Jewish marriage the "espoused" is considered from that time to be called wife. God chose His Wife Israel. This is His Bride Wife to be.

He went back to His Fathers house, as is the Jewish marriage custom. He will come again for Her, Israel. As you know scripture you know this is true, as is In my Father's house are many mansions, and I go to prepare a place for you, then I'll back for you and receive you unto myself.

Was He talking to You? He said He wasn't, for that was in that "dispensation" of God, not this one. He was talking to those of His, not those that go to the Cross, for there was no Cross to go to when they were saved and the promise was made. We see His promise to be true ….Rev. 21:2, and 9. The Lamb of God did not come for any but from the seed from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Well I see you have now changed your tune. You do admit there are two gospels, one for the Jew that was told to come by faith, and our gospel for today to come through faith. This is the way we each are "justified". Congratulations for it is the Holy Spirit that has shown you this and not me.

 

Well I see you have now changed your tune. You do admit there are two gospels, one for the Jew that was told to come by faith, and our gospel for today to come through faith. Each is "justified" in this manner. Congratulations for it is the Holy Spirit that has shown you this and not me.

 

In faith He came by the Grace of God, and by that faith he was "justified".

 

So, I guess the Holy Spirit got confused and said that it was about the Kingdom of the Heavens, and I guess he got confused when he said that the 5 foolish virgins had oil, and...

I guess God is the author of confusion if this is what he meant.

 

Let the Scripture speak for itself:

Matthew 25:3-4 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

 

This thread is well past 30 pages and needs to be closed. Please start another one on a similar topic if you so please.

Yours in Christ,
DHK