User Tag List

Page 257 of 257 FirstFirst ... 157207247254255256257
Results 3,841 to 3,843 of 3843

Thread: BRXII Battle talk

  1. #3841
    Eclectic Theosophist freelight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Bend, OR. USA
    Posts
    7,476
    Thanks
    2,751
    Thanked 1,758 Times in 1,265 Posts

    Blog Entries
    90
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1492452

    Lightbulb Continued Research.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottune View Post
    Great battle...I think kevin did a good job and with great poise and attitude. Logos made some valid points. I want to be a universalist and have tried for a year now but just not enough scriptural support. I realize ill have to believe the bible is loaded with errors to do it and cant get myself there. What I dont understand is how pastor kevin is able to belive in eternal torment for unbelivers and yet still see god as loving?.....or more than that see him as a good mastermind behind creation? My unanswerable question I have that I would love to battle someone on is....after adam and eve sinned why didnt god close eves womb and save billions from going to endless torment? The only logical answer is universalism or annihilation...... Ive tried to get answers and have yet to find one.....can someone please help me?
    Hi Scottune,

    If you've read any of the posts here you'll see my views written at various time-points, so some of my views may have changed or been modified in various ways, ever evolving - My blog archive on ECT (eternal conscious torment) from a particular thread on the subject is here, and we expound on it more here ('Justification of Eternal Punishment' thread). I see the truth of ultimate destinies lying somewhere between aspects of universalism and 'conditional immortality', but am careful on how we employ those terms,....'terms' having their own 'terms'...and so on. I've also shared how trying to find a so called 'biblical perspective' is limited to the terms provided in the Bible which are not perfect, nor complete IMO,...hence all the various opinions and interpretations, which is why I draw from a university of many different religious traditions, schools of philosophy/metaphysics, Theosophy, Spiritualism, psychical research, etc. to be included in what has been revealed to man so far, in knowledge and experience.

  2. #3842
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 31 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4296
    Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
    Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
    32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

  3. #3843
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 31 Times in 23 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4296
    Quote Originally Posted by PKevman View Post
    Good grief no! But that is what Universalist "scholars" do when they make bold statements that words don't mean what most scholars have translated them to mean. My point is why do we disregard virtually ALL of the modern Bible translations just because Universalists dont like what they say?
    "I understand it is hard to grasp for many, but for 1000 years there was no Bible available at all for the common people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy, however even the worst translations contain the universalist verses and show that "for ever" is not always endless. It's only for a few years now where all people have access to all translations and even the source texts in their original languages."

    Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper. If atheists shelled out to have printed 100 versions saying "God is dead" would you accept that because the 100 outnumber what other versions say?

    Since the translators all believed in endless punishment, what else would you expect, except that they all would mis-translate certain "hell" passages the same way? Obviously.

    Dozens of English translations don't agree with those cloned by the endless tortures boys club.

    Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations. Better to call them paraphrases, interpretations or theological driven opinions of what the originally inspired ancient language texts say.

    Even your cloned theologically driven interpretative "versions" support universalism, which makes them self-contradictory, e.g.:

    Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
    Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
    32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…

    Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context.

    What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

    "Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

    "After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us