ECT One verse doctrines and made up doctrines.

[DansingWall]

JOHN 6 [39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You see what the Word says. So if you believe ya go to heaven as soon as you die, you must also believe that one day God will yank you out of heaven, throw you in the ground (buried alive) and then raise you up on the last day

I think not

 

[nikolai_42]

"Absent from the body, present with the Lord."
Just to clarify, I am a believer, but have nothing to do with and oppose what is called 'Evangelicalism." First, the words, Evangelicalism, Evangelicals are nowhere to be found in the original Hebrew or Greek texts and there is not one English translation that uses those words. The word "Evangelical" was coined by Spurgeon. Yet, his intent was to apply the term to actual believers, which is not the reality today.
Second, Evangelicalism is false Christianity. In the world of Evangelicalism many, many lies are taught and believed.
I personally do not care if you agree or disagree with what I post. I wont debate or argue with anyone who starts a statement with, "I think, I believe, I feel, I know, I sense, in my spirit, the spirit tells me, God/Jesus told me, I had a dream/vision,or My preacher says..."
I actually study scripture and there are some ground rules that must be followed in any discussion of biblical things:
1. Any claim that something is biblical must be backed up by actual verses. There is not one biblical doctrine (Teaching, instruction, command) that does not have a number of verses validating what is said.

2. You must be able to show me a verse(s)
that actually use words that validate a statement. For example, one of the Evangelicals favorite catch-phrases is,
"Be the hands and feet of Jesus." While you may personally believe that, you would not be able to show me even one verse where the words, "Be the hands and feet of Jesus," are used. That is one of the problems in the Evangelical world. People believe what they want the bible to say instead of believing what the bible actually does say.
3. Any doctrine that applies to believers today must be found in both Testaments. Jesus did not come to start something "new" for the Gentiles. The English word "Church" is not the correct translation of "ekklesia" in Mat 16:18. The word "Church" is not even a bad translation. It is not a transliteration. It is a word that has nothing to do with Gentile believers. It was forced into the translation in order to enforce the idea of a hierarchy, whereas the religious leaders were superior over lay people, they were the only "qualified" interpreters of Scripture and had rule over people. Look it up for yourselves. Who was Jesus talking to when He said, " I will build...?" Nicodemus, a Jew. From the very beginning until the end of time, God has set it up in that the Gentiles were to be grafted into the Kingdom. Jesus did not "start" some type of Gentile "Church" that would be used to bring the Jews back into the Kingdom. Everything Jesus taught, Paul taught, John taught, Peter taught" James and Jude taught were all based on the Old Testament. Jesus only said "a new commandment I give unto you" one time John 13:34,
4. All words must be looked at from the original languages, the definition of the original words and with the proper context.

If anybody follows these ground rules, I will discuss any biblical topic.

2Pet 3:16 perfectly describes what the Evangelical preachers are doing. The status quo is:
1. Verses are twisted and perverted.
2. They add to and take away from God's word.
3. They isolate verses and treat them as if one verse or a passage teaches a doctrine.
4. They lie about word definitions. One grand example is when they teach that "meek" means "power under control." NO IT DOESN'T! Look it up yourselves. It means "humble", no more, no less
5. They spiritualize anything they want to,
"The storms in your life," " The giants in your life," etc.
6. They use selective verses to validate what they say instead of showing everything that the bible says about a topic.
7. They teach literal things as symbolic and symbolic things as literal.
8. They have no knowledge of the Jewish figures of speech used and miss the meaning.
9.They treat the parables as if they are true stories.

'Absent from the body, present with the Lord," is a common catch-phrase in the Evangelical world. It is taught to mean that when a believer dies, the spirit of the believer goes immediately to be with Jesus. It is said so often and with such conviction that people assume it must be a verse or phrase found in the bible. Entire sermons and semon series are put together to teach that when a believer dies. . i cannot even imagine the number of funerals where this phrase is stated.
There is only one, teeny problem. "Absent from the body, present with the Lord," is not a verse found in the word of God. It is not a phrase located within a verse. In the entire bible, not one writer wrote down those words. There is not even a hint of "Absent from the body, present with the Lord," ever being spoken by any person recorded in the bible.
The phrase is just one example of many, many lies being taught and believed in the Evangelical world. It is just one example of how man-made traditions are abundent in the Evangelical world. It is just one example of the Evangelical preachers refusal to study. It is just one example that shows the Evangelical preachers do not know how to, or even care to do any type of honest study. It is just one example of the lack of knowledge among the Evangelical pew warmers who are so simple minded that they swallow hook, line and sinker anything a Evangelical preacher tells them. It is just another example of how the pew warmers will not bother to even check out anything they they are told. It is just another example of how gullible, niave and without a lick if discernment the pew warmers are. It shows how what the bible prophesied, tons of false teachers and the huge number of those who desire false teaching instead of bible truth.
"Absent from the body, present with the Lord," is a twisted perversion of 2Cor 5:8

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

You see? That verse does not teach, Absent from the body.. " This verse has been corrupted. I could tell somebody that "Paul taught that believers would rather be with the Lord rather than be alive here on earth," and them show the verse, thus validating what I am teaching. Nobody can teach that when believers die, their spirit goes to be with Jesus. They can say it a million times, but they can't show even one verse that validates what they are saying.

I have not been able to track down when and who started, 'Absent from the body, present with the Lord." I wonder if some Evangelical preacher had read,1Cor 5:3 some time ago and by using his own imagination and practicing a method of false teaching, came up with "Absent from the body..."
But, more important is the fact that any Evangelical preacher today, in the past or in the future, who teaches "Absent from the body, present with the Lord," and that it means that the believers spirit goes to be with Jesus immediately after death, are
teaching a LIE. THEY ARE LYING. What do you call a person who claims to teach bible truth, but teaches lies about what the bible states? A False teacher.

Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk

Paul was a little less ambiguous elsewhere :

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Philippians 1:21-24

And I would say that this is one issue where your demand for OT and NT evidence is possibly problematic. For while the OT does indeed teach resurrection, I suspect it would be difficult to prove the NT view of death. The OT prophets didn't know all of what they affirmed, but Jesus came along and made a rather bold statement about Himself :

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 11:23-26

What OT teaching was Jesus quoting there? Martha knew what the OT taught about resurrection, but Jesus took it into the immediate and upon Himself.

 

[preacherman57]

Paul was a little less ambiguous elsewhere :

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Philippians 1:21-24

And I would say that this is one issue where your demand for OT and NT evidence is possibly problematic. For while the OT does indeed teach resurrection, I suspect it would be difficult to prove the NT view of death. The OT prophets didn't know all of what they affirmed, but Jesus came along and made a rather bold statement about Himself :

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
John 11:23-26

What OT teaching was Jesus quoting there? Martha knew what the OT taught about resurrection, but Jesus took it into the immediate and upon Himself.

Ok,
My point about showing O.T. references to topics in the N.T. is so that people cannot claim a modern day false teaching as something biblical. If you cannot do this, then it cannot be used. In the case John 11: 23-25, what I speak of is that the fact that believers are going to be resurrected can be shown in both Testaments. Beyond that, there were many things layed out in the O.T. that were a mystery until Jesus arrived. In Jn 11:25, Jesus was claiming that He was God, because the Jews knew that God was the one who was going to resurrect the people. He said He was the resurrection, only God can resurrect the dead.
In Phi 1: 21-24, Paul is not referring to any O.T. doctrine. He was instructing about life as a believer. Much of our instructions from Paul relate to the beliefs, attitudes and actions believers should live under. But, when Paul gets into theology, the things he says will always be found in the O T.
Much of what Jesus said and taught was his correcting the lies of the scribes and Pharisees.

Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk

 

[way 2 go]

JOHN 6 [39] And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.[40] And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You see what the Word says. So if you believe ya go to heaven as soon as you die, you must also believe that one day God will yank you out of heaven, throw you in the ground (buried alive) and then raise you up on the last day

I think not

resurrect your physical body


Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God,

 

[DAN P]

What in the world is a translation of the KJV?

And what in the world is a translated KJV?

Lol - unless you mean the Reina Valera-Gomez - which is a Spanish update of the Reina Valera by Gomez so that it aligns with the KJV, but in Spanish.

Note: the lol is because I doubt that is what you were talking about.

Rom. 5: 6-8

Hi Danoh , and buy THE GREEK BOOK and they will tell you about it !!

There are about , more than 160 translation , so which one is good for you ??

dan p

 

[nikolai_42]

Ok,
My point about showing O.T. references to topics in the N.T. is so that people cannot claim a modern day false teaching as something biblical. If you cannot do this, then it cannot be used. In the case John 11: 23-25, what I speak of is that the fact that believers are going to be resurrected can be shown in both Testaments. Beyond that, there were many things layed out in the O.T. that were a mystery until Jesus arrived. In Jn 11:25, Jesus was claiming that He was God, because the Jews knew that God was the one who was going to resurrect the people. He said He was the resurrection, only God can resurrect the dead.
In Phi 1: 21-24, Paul is not referring to any O.T. doctrine. He was instructing about life as a believer. Much of our instructions from Paul relate to the beliefs, attitudes and actions believers should live under. But, when Paul gets into theology, the things he says will always be found in the O T.
Much of what Jesus said and taught was his correcting the lies of the scribes and Pharisees.

Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk

While I agree with much of what you said here, I will have to take some issue with what you say about Paul teaching theology. The passage that comes immediately to mind just happens to be on the same subject already under discussion : resurrection. In his letter to the Corinthian church, he says this :

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
I Corinthians 15:51-52

I won't propose to explain the doctrine (I know there are multiple interpretations and the doctrine itself is not my point in this particular instance) but simply want to highlight the fact that Paul is teaching something not previously revealed in the OT - or (if I read correctly) by Jesus. Jesus himself used the term a few times - in connection with other mysteries of the Kingdom (which were hidden using parables). And there are several other occasions on which Paul uses the same word to the same affect (e.g. Romans 11:25, Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 5:32, Colossians 1:26 etc...). In all these things - assuming I am using the word "theology" the same way you are - Paul is teaching theology. New theology. Paul even said that the apostles were stewards of the mysteries...

 

[preacherman57]

Incorrect.

We find the word "euaggelion" (or "euangelion") a few times in scripture.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g2098



Evangelism is defined (in relation to Christianity) as "the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness."

This is exactly what Christ said to do (see "euaggelion" link above).



I shall do my best to present facts and not opinions.



Does something have to be explicitly stated in scripture? or can we use logic and reason for our exegesis?



You mention below Jewish figures of speech. Let's not, in our exegesis of Scripture, be hypocritical in not understanding English figures of speech as well which can summarize beliefs.

Being "hands and feet of Christ" (please note, I am non-denominational) is a figure of speech that means to do what Christ wants us to do, and to go where Christ wants us to go.

The phrase is simply an amalgamation of various scriptures.



Not necessarily.



Correct, His focus was on the Jews.



What would be the correct translation of that word, then, oh knowledgeable one?



Originally, that is correct. It was referring to believing Israel, as the Body of Christ had not been implemented yet.



Does Paul not have anything to say about this topic?



Are you referring to Matthew 16:18? Jesus is speaking to Peter in that verse.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew16:18&version=NKJV

(Interesting tidbit about that verse: Jesus uses two different words for "rock" when speaking to Peter. "Peter" ("Petros") means "a (piece of) rock," but petra just means "a (mass of) rock." Jesus is calling Peter a rock, but Peter won't be the rock that He builds his ekklesia on. That "rock" is Jesus Himself.)





Excellent.



Cool beans.



Unfortunately, the following applies to MOST Christians, and not just Evangelicals.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



I've never heard that one before.



Agreed, some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Question 1:

Do the parables Jesus and others taught reflect reality? In other words, do they have that flavor of realism that makes it believable and even relatable?



It has indeed become cliche. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong...



Well, considering that it is almost verbatim (I did say "almost") in Scripture, it's not surprising that it's so memorable.



Doesn't mean it's incorrect though...



Correct.



Well, that's not entirely true. As you (and I) quoted below, it's not a verbatim phrase from scripture, but rather rewording a phrase in a verse to describe something. More on that in a bit.



We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians5:8&version=NKJV

That seems like a pretty BIG hint...

Question 2:

What is death?

If we're going to be talking about death, then it would help to have an understanding of what it is, would it not?



Nothing worth replying to in this section.



No, it's just extracting what Paul is teaching.

Question 3:

Is "sleep" often used as a euphemism in the Bible for death?



On the contrary, there are several verses that show just that, that when a believer dies, they are immediately with God in heaven. We'll get to them in later posts.



:think: Perhaps it was Paul??? :think:



You seem to have an axe to grind on this subject.

Preacherman, Here are my questions above. If you could answer them, it would help the discussion along.

Question 1: Do parables in the Bible reflect reality?
Question 2: What is death?
Question 3: Is "sleep" used in the Bible as a euphemism for death?

If there is anything I have stated that is incorrect, or if I have misrepresented your position, I welcome correction.

Hello,
Two things you should know.
1. I am a o.t.r. truck driver and i do not always have much time to respond or post things.
2. As i have travled this country for many years, most of the time i listen to the radio. I usually try to find "Christian" radio stations. As a result i have listened to hundreds of raido preachers and ministries. The huge majority proclaim false teaching. How can i say this? Because i have been studying scripture for the last 25 year's, on and off. But in that 25 year period, i have not always been driving and when not driving, most of my free time is spent in study. I could easily write a book about false teachers. My point is i recognize the lies when i hear them. Yes, i always have an axe to grind with false teaching.
Does not God's forbid adding or taking away from His word? Yes! Deut 4:2, 12:32, Pro 30:6, Rev 22:18. That includes lying about a verse, not teaching everything about a topic, lying about word definitions and making things up, twisting verses, among many other provlems.
Every English translation has problems compared to the original text, the Masoritic text and the TR.
Plus, there is evidence that much of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew, which was later translated into Koine Greek. Do you know they have the gosple of Matthew, written in Hebrew, before it was translated into the Greek, in a museum in Germany?
Do you think it is crucial and very important to stick with and learn from the original texts? Do you think it is important to teach from the original texts? Do you think it is important to view the bible from a Jewish mind-set, based on their culture, their society, the political, economic and historical context? Do you think we sholud study the manners and customs of the Jews to get a proper understanding of what things in the bible actually mean versus reading an English translation and applying our Western, Helinistic, Neo- Plato Philosphy into a book of books that was not written with our culture and language in mind? Do you think that God had to wait for English to develope in order for us to have the "true" understanding of what He simply could not do through the Jews? Do you think Paul fretted about what he wrote because he "knew" that he could not make himself clear in his day, with his language and culture? Do you think the Evangelical preachers today are the real experts, in that they know more than those who wrote down the words?
That is where i am coming from. The Hebrew and Greek languages of the bible are dead. And that benifits us in our study because the words and the definitions have not changed from the time they were used. This enables us to have a clear understanding about what was written at their point in history. The grammar rules and the syntax remain the same. We must go with what has been written, not what our modern day culture "wants" it to mean.
The false teachers and believers have changed the nature of God and Jesus. They treat the O.T. God as if He were a very stern, uncompromising, fierce God, but the N.T. God is this kindly, grandfather figure who wouldnt hurt a fly and has candy in His pocket. Jesus has been turned into the fun-loving, laughing, wimpy big brother who is just oozing love out of every pore. They have changed the gospel into a sappy love letter. I could go on, but, yes, what they have done is unforgivable. And is a direct slap in the face to God.
Yes, the words euaggelion, a good message, and euaggelistes, evangelist, are in scripture. Have you looked up the words? An evangelist was a preacher, missionary and one who established congrgations, all rolled up into one person. What they call an "evangelist" today does not fit the definition of a biblical evangelist. A true evangelist is not one who travels to different churches and preaches. A true, biblical evangelist does not hold "crusades" in areas where the bible has already been established and. is preached.
Yet, those words have never, not once, not by any true Greek scholar or Expert in Koine Greek, been trabslated into "Evangelical." It is a made up word! It doesn't matter to me, nor do I care what people say it means! You cannot prove to me through scripture, context, parsing, commentary, bible dictionary, lexicon, etc, that this is a biblical word. Thus, it cannot nor should not be used. The two Greek words are never translated or transliterated even one time into "Evangelical" Not one time in the N.T. are believers called Evangelicals. I don't care who or how many believe different, it is not in Scripture! Period! What is your source of truth. From where do you learn what is biblical? The actual texts, or something somebody made up and is now a part of the Evangelical world. It does not matter how many modern writers and speakers state otherwise. You cannot prove me wrong through scripture.
Instead if me typing my study on the word 'Church' do this instead. Type in your browser, "did the Geneva bible use the word church". And then click on and read the following:
Why I avoid the word church, segullah.net
The mysterious word church, beinaberean org.
Church isn't in the N.T , sid roth
The translation of the Greek word ekklesia, bible.truth.org
After you have read those, type in your browser, the etymology if the word church- derives from circe, grahamhancock.com

You say you have never heard meek being defined as "power/strength under control?
Look up the word 'meek" in your Strong's Concordance. You will find that in both testaments the word means " humble, lowly., gentle" Now, type in your browser either, biblical meaning of hope, what does meek mean, or 'strength under control." And then you will see the huge number of people that teach that meek means" strength/power under control."
So, since you took the time, did a little word study, put in some effort, you learned what "meek" in the bible means. You also now know that the word does not mean "strength/power under control" But, as you read for yourself all of the people who teach that meek means "strength/power under control", and im sure you will recognize some of the names" , you must address this fact. You looked the word up for yourself and you know the true meaning. How long did it take you to learn the definition? A couple of minutes? You did actual study, i.e. you wanted to know the definition of the word in the original text, which is a big part of bible study and for those who call themselves preachers, should have, and always should do.
But, you see time and time again the "preachers" all say, "strength/power under control." What is the only conclusion? The Evangelical preachers dont study. Not one of them put in 5 minutes of bible study to learn the actual definition. They not only post it on line, they teach it to their pew warmers. And, shows that they all just use what the other Evangelical preachers use. They are all on the same page. How hard was it to look up a word? Anybody that can read English could also discover whatv"meek" means.
What do you call someone who lies. What do you call someone who processes to believe in and teaches bible truth and lies about something in Scripture. A false teacher. Another huge positive is since you know what the word "meek" means, you are prepared to catch the lie when someone tells you that meek means strength/power under control. You are now also to correct another and instruct them on the true meaning of "meek"
If every word of God is pure, Psalm 12:6, 119: 140, Pro 30:5,
Then a preacher must study the words so that he teaches truth. One last point, i heard a famous preacher, now dead, who was based in Memphis, Tn say, " When a wild horse is tamed, they say the horse has been "meeked". Are you kidding me. A famouse preacher, now deceased, loved by many, many people and still widely respected, was not merely lying about a word in the bible, he had to make one up.
I didnt write my post to discuss death. I will finish this up the next opportunity i get.
Bob

Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk

 

[preacherman57]

Incorrect.

We find the word "euaggelion" (or "euangelion") a few times in scripture.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g2098



Evangelism is defined (in relation to Christianity) as "the spreading of the Christian gospel by public preaching or personal witness."

This is exactly what Christ said to do (see "euaggelion" link above).



I shall do my best to present facts and not opinions.



Does something have to be explicitly stated in scripture? or can we use logic and reason for our exegesis?



You mention below Jewish figures of speech. Let's not, in our exegesis of Scripture, be hypocritical in not understanding English figures of speech as well which can summarize beliefs.

Being "hands and feet of Christ" (please note, I am non-denominational) is a figure of speech that means to do what Christ wants us to do, and to go where Christ wants us to go.

The phrase is simply an amalgamation of various scriptures.



Not necessarily.



Correct, His focus was on the Jews.



What would be the correct translation of that word, then, oh knowledgeable one?



Originally, that is correct. It was referring to believing Israel, as the Body of Christ had not been implemented yet.



Does Paul not have anything to say about this topic?



Are you referring to Matthew 16:18? Jesus is speaking to Peter in that verse.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. - Matthew 16:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew16:18&version=NKJV

(Interesting tidbit about that verse: Jesus uses two different words for "rock" when speaking to Peter. "Peter" ("Petros") means "a (piece of) rock," but petra just means "a (mass of) rock." Jesus is calling Peter a rock, but Peter won't be the rock that He builds his ekklesia on. That "rock" is Jesus Himself.)





Excellent.



Cool beans.



Unfortunately, the following applies to MOST Christians, and not just Evangelicals.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



I've never heard that one before.



Agreed, some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Unfortunately.



Question 1:

Do the parables Jesus and others taught reflect reality? In other words, do they have that flavor of realism that makes it believable and even relatable?



It has indeed become cliche. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong...



Well, considering that it is almost verbatim (I did say "almost") in Scripture, it's not surprising that it's so memorable.



Doesn't mean it's incorrect though...



Correct.



Well, that's not entirely true. As you (and I) quoted below, it's not a verbatim phrase from scripture, but rather rewording a phrase in a verse to describe something. More on that in a bit.



We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. - 2 Corinthians 5:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Corinthians5:8&version=NKJV

That seems like a pretty BIG hint...

Question 2:

What is death?

If we're going to be talking about death, then it would help to have an understanding of what it is, would it not?



Nothing worth replying to in this section.



No, it's just extracting what Paul is teaching.

Question 3:

Is "sleep" often used as a euphemism in the Bible for death?



On the contrary, there are several verses that show just that, that when a believer dies, they are immediately with God in heaven. We'll get to them in later posts.



:think: Perhaps it was Paul??? :think:



You seem to have an axe to grind on this subject.

Preacherman, Here are my questions above. If you could answer them, it would help the discussion along.

Question 1: Do parables in the Bible reflect reality?
Question 2: What is death?
Question 3: Is "sleep" used in the Bible as a euphemism for death?

If there is anything I have stated that is incorrect, or if I have misrepresented your position, I welcome correction.

Hello,
Two things you should know.
1. I am a o.t.r. truck driver and i do not always have much time to respond or post things.
2. As i have travled this country for many years, most of the time i listen to the radio. I usually try to find "Christian" radio stations. As a result i have listened to hundreds of raido preachers and ministries. The huge majority proclaim false teaching. How can i say this? Because i have been studying scripture for the last 25 year's, on and off. But in that 25 year period, i have not always been driving and when not driving, most of my free time is spent in study. I could easily write a book about false teachers. My point is i recognize the lies when i hear them. Yes, i always have an axe to grind with false teaching.
Does not God's forbid adding or taking away from His word? Yes! Every English translation has problems compared to the original text, the Masoritic text and the TR.
Plus, there is evidence that much of the N.T. was originally written in Hebrew, which was later translated into Koine Greek. Do you know they have the gosple of Matthew, written in Hebrew, before it was translated into the Greek, in a museum in Germany?
Do you think it is crucial and very important to stick with and learn from the original texts? Do you think it is important to teach from the original texts? Do you think it is important to view the bible from a Jewish mind-set, based on their culture, their society, the political, economic and historical context? Do you think we sholud study the manners and customs of the Jews to get a proper understanding of what things in the bible actually mean versus reading an English translation and applying our Western, Helinistic, Neo- Plato Philosphy into a book of books that was not written with our culture and language in mind? Do you think that God had to wait for English to develope in order for us to have the "true" understanding of what He simply could not do through the Jews? Do you think Paul fretted about what he wrote because he "knew" that he could not make himself clear in his day, with his language and culture?
That is where i am coming from. The Hebrew and Greek languages of the bible are dead. And that benifits us in our study because the words and the definitions have not changed from the time they were used. This enables us to have a clear understanding about what was written at their point in history. The grammar rules and the syntax remain the same. We must go with what has been written, not what our modern day culture "wants" it to mean.


Sent from my LG-M327 using Tapatalk