Did God Predestinate some to Hell/Wrath ?

[turnorburn]

The version that you've been using seems to take on a different meaning than the (KJV)

Hebrews 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. (KJV)

The difference between patience and endurance..

Difference Between Patience and Endurance

Posted on April 28, 2015 by admin


Patience vs Endurance
Even though the words patience and endurance sound familiar as both denote accepting difficulty and tolerating an unpleasant situation, these words have specific meanings that highlight that there is a difference between patience and endurance. First let us pay attention to the definitions of the words. Patience can be defined as the ability to accept delay or trouble calmly. On the other hand, endurance can be defined as experiencing and surviving pain or hardship. The main difference between the two words can be understood in the following manner. Patience is usually associated with the manner in which we deal with wrongdoings that have been made against us, but endurance is usually associated with difficult circumstances in life. Through this article let us examine the differences between these two words while gaining an understanding of each word.

What is Patience?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, patience can be defined as the ability to accept delay or trouble calmly. This highlights that patience is a quality that is seen in individuals when they experience issues in life. For instance, when a person is wronged by another, he would be patient and forgive the other, or else he would seek revenge. In such a context, the person who displays patience is considered the better person.

What is Endurance?
The Oxford English Dictionary defined the word endurance as experiencing and surviving pain or hardship. Mostly the word endure is used for difficult situations we encounter in life. It gives the idea that the individual does not succumb to the obstacles but holds on. For example, imagine a person whose life situation is extremely negative. He has no proper place to live and a painstaking job. The individual endures his condition with the hope that he will survive and that his situation in life will be better. This gives away the idea that endurance is a bit different to patience..

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-patience-and-vs-endurance/

 

[OzSpen]

The version that you've been using seems to take on a different meaning than the (KJV)

Hebrews 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;

33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.

34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. (KJV)

The difference between patience and endurance..

Difference Between Patience and Endurance

Posted on April 28, 2015 by admin


Patience vs Endurance
Even though the words patience and endurance sound familiar as both denote accepting difficulty and tolerating an unpleasant situation, these words have specific meanings that highlight that there is a difference between patience and endurance. First let us pay attention to the definitions of the words. Patience can be defined as the ability to accept delay or trouble calmly. On the other hand, endurance can be defined as experiencing and surviving pain or hardship. The main difference between the two words can be understood in the following manner. Patience is usually associated with the manner in which we deal with wrongdoings that have been made against us, but endurance is usually associated with difficult circumstances in life. Through this article let us examine the differences between these two words while gaining an understanding of each word.

What is Patience?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, patience can be defined as the ability to accept delay or trouble calmly. This highlights that patience is a quality that is seen in individuals when they experience issues in life. For instance, when a person is wronged by another, he would be patient and forgive the other, or else he would seek revenge. In such a context, the person who displays patience is considered the better person.

What is Endurance?
The Oxford English Dictionary defined the word endurance as experiencing and surviving pain or hardship. Mostly the word endure is used for difficult situations we encounter in life. It gives the idea that the individual does not succumb to the obstacles but holds on. For example, imagine a person whose life situation is extremely negative. He has no proper place to live and a painstaking job. The individual endures his condition with the hope that he will survive and that his situation in life will be better. This gives away the idea that endurance is a bit different to patience..

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-patience-and-vs-endurance/

turnorburn,

When you go to the English language to try to demonstrate the difference between patience and endurance, you do not exegete the Greek word.

What you have to do to understand the meaning is to go to Heb 10:36 (SBLGNT) and exegete the first word, which is the noun, ὑπομονῆς = hupomones, which the KJV translates as 'patience' and other translations such as the ESV, translate as 'endurance'.

No English dictionary will provide the meaning of ὑπομονῆς. The verbal form is in Heb 10:32 (SBLGNT), ὑπεμείνατε = hupemeinate. Again, you won't find the meaning in Oxford, Merriam-Webster, or any other English dictionary.

Oz

 

[smaller]

The reality the non literal idiom refers to is real.

The Sheep He sends out are His disciples.

The wolves that they are sent among are unbelieving Jews, whom the disciples are sent out to convert.

16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. Matthew 10:16-17

JLB

If we want to know about wolves, what that means in the scriptural senses, then we study Gods Word to find out. The wolves can be seen by their actions, but wolves ARE an internal issue of sin and evil. This much is certain. And if anyone manages to have enough interest to get that far in their studies, then they'll also realize that we are no better than they.

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

No wolves are able to submit to Gods Disclosures or Discourses. They will instead, refuse to hear and likewise refuse to apply to Gods knowledge, distributed, personally.

So how might we perceive internal wolves? By their actions, of course.

Acts 20:29
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The above is called double emphasis, where the Holy Spirit speaks surety. Did this happen? Absolutely it did. The "doctrine" of the Nicolatians was brought up before the end of the Bible, Rev. 2:15 for example, because this doctrine was in the churches.

Nicolaitans = "destruction of people"

Jesus hates this doctrine. Why? Because this doctrine refuses to see people as scripture sees them, in the captor/captive relationship. And rather seeking to "divide" people from their captors and save them, it instead, destroys both captor and captive.

The captors will assuredly be destroyed. But we are to hope to the end, for every person.

And YES, God has PREDESTINED the CAPTORS to eternal hell, beyond any uncertainty.

 

[chessman]

I would suggest that sects claiming to have a "sole lock" on "all truth" are a fact, and could point to at least 6 major orthodox sects that make such claims.

If there's at least 6 major orthodox sects that claim a sole lock on all truth, you'd think I'd know of more than one. But again, I don't know who (what major sects) you mean because you are not clearly communicating them.

The only sect that I know of that even comes close to making that claim is the RCC when it's holy father speaks from his "chair". I forget what they call that in Latin. It's only happened a few times. But once is enough I suppose. I believe, even then, they'd say it's God (The Holy Father) speaking through their holy father though.

 

[smaller]

If there's at least 6 major orthodox sects that claim a sole lock on all truth, you'd think I'd know of more than one. But again, I don't know who (what major sects) you mean because you are not clearly communicating them.

The only sect that I know of that even comes close to making that claim is the RCC when it's holy father speaks from his "chair". I forget what they call that in Latin. It's only happened a few times. But once is enough I suppose. I believe, even then, they'd say it's God (The Holy Father) speaking through their holy father though.

That's why I only refer to them generically, because we are not "allowed" to have the conversations about their written, publicly open positions here. Which is probably a good thing.

 

[turnorburn]

Here's another example...

Patience vs. Endurance: What is the difference?

Patience has a greater focus on our response to wrongs committed against us.

Endurance has a greater focus on our response to bad circumstances and to the trials of life.

[The following comparisons, taken from New Testament Greek reference books, are also included in the two studies about these character traits.]


Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

• PATIENCE / LONGSUFFERING: The self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong - opposed to wrath or revenge.
  
  
• ENDURANCE / PERSEVERANCE: The temper which does not easily succumb under suffering - opposed to cowardice or despondency.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words:

• PATIENCE / LONGSUFFERING: That quality of self-restraint in the face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly punish; it is the opposite of anger, and is associated with mercy, and is used of God.
  
  
• ENDURANCE / PERSEVERANCE: The quality that does not surrender to circumstances or succumb under trial; it is the opposite of despondency and is associated with hope; it is not used of God.

http://www.journal33.org/values/html/group02.html

 

[OzSpen]

Here's another example...

Patience vs. Endurance: What is the difference?

Patience has a greater focus on our response to wrongs committed against us.

Endurance has a greater focus on our response to bad circumstances and to the trials of life.

[The following comparisons, taken from New Testament Greek reference books, are also included in the two studies about these character traits.]


Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:

• PATIENCE / LONGSUFFERING: The self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong - opposed to wrath or revenge.
  
  
• ENDURANCE / PERSEVERANCE: The temper which does not easily succumb under suffering - opposed to cowardice or despondency.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words:

• PATIENCE / LONGSUFFERING: That quality of self-restraint in the face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly punish; it is the opposite of anger, and is associated with mercy, and is used of God.
  
  
• ENDURANCE / PERSEVERANCE: The quality that does not surrender to circumstances or succumb under trial; it is the opposite of despondency and is associated with hope; it is not used of God.

http://www.journal33.org/values/html/group02.html

This is what happens when you don't read NT Greek. The quote you gave from Thayer's Greek lexicon has no reference to where that information came from, as to which edition and where it can be found in Thayer.

However, I have a hard copy of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and it gives 3 meanings of hupomone, as applied to various verses in the NT. Those meanings are:

1. 'Steadfastness, constancy, endurance';

2. 'A patient, steadfast waiting for';

3. 'A patient enduring, sustaining' (Thayer 1885/1962: 644).

Therefore, your wanting to separate endurance from patience is not sustained with these meanings from Thayer.

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon (much more recent and comprehensive than Thayer) gives these 2 main NT meanings for hupomone:

1. 'Patience, endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance';

2. '(patient) expectation' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:854).

Oz

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House) [This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).]

Thayer, J H 1885/1962. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, tr, rev, enl. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

[OzSpen]

If there's at least 6 major orthodox sects that claim a sole lock on all truth, you'd think I'd know of more than one. But again, I don't know who (what major sects) you mean because you are not clearly communicating them.

The only sect that I know of that even comes close to making that claim is the RCC when it's holy father speaks from his "chair". I forget what they call that in Latin. It's only happened a few times. But once is enough I suppose. I believe, even then, they'd say it's God (The Holy Father) speaking through their holy father though.

chessman,

I know of Presbyterian denominations (some small) where you would never be allowed to become a member if you were not a card-carrying supporter of the Westminster Confession of Faith and a supporter of TULIP Calvinism.

There is a small, restrictive group known as the Exclusive Brethren (a strict version of the Christian Brethren - J N Darby kind) that excommunicates people who don't believe as they believe. In my country, it is a very small group. Worldwide, they have about 43,000 people (source).

However, there is breadth in some other denominations like Southern Baptists where there are both Arminians and Calvinists.

Try being an evangelical or charismatic among the Queensland Anglicans (my home state) and you'll quickly know you are not welcome. It's Qld theological college is so infiltrated with theological liberalism that any evangelical wanting to enter the Anglican ministry wouldn't go to that college but would head to Moore College, Sydney (an evangelical diocese) or Ridley College, Melbourne (where Leon Morris used to teach).

That's just a feel from Down Under.
Oz

 

[turnorburn]

This is what happens when you don't read NT Greek. The quote you gave from Thayer's Greek lexicon has no reference to where that information came from, as to which edition and where it can be found in Thayer.

However, I have a hard copy of Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and it gives 3 meanings of hupomone, as applied to various verses in the NT. Those meanings are:

1. 'Steadfastness, constancy, endurance';

2. 'A patient, steadfast waiting for';

3. 'A patient enduring, sustaining' (Thayer 1885/1962: 644).

Therefore, your wanting to separate endurance from patience is not sustained with these meanings from Thayer.

Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon (much more recent and comprehensive than Thayer) gives these 2 main NT meanings for hupomone:

1. 'Patience, endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance';

2. '(patient) expectation' (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:854).

Oz

Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House) [This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).]

Thayer, J H 1885/1962. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, tr, rev, enl. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

To be truthful i don't read any NT Greek.. i seek the simple route by simply believing my bible..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

To be truthful i don't read any NT Greek.. i seek the simple route by simply believing my bible..

II Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

That's part of the problem. You quoted a Greek lexicon (which you don't read) which gave a meaning that is nowhere found in Thayer's lexicon.

'Simply believing my bible' is not so simple after all as it had to be translated by some who knew Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek grammar. Knowing the meaning of a verse by using one English translation is not a good idea IMHO.

If one does not read Hebrew or Greek, the simplest solution I know is to compare about 6 good translations (e.g. NKJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, LEB, NLT, NASB) to see the diversity of meaning and then reach a conclusion.

I know there are many people like you who do not read the original languages, and I recommend comparison of translations.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[JLB]

If we want to know about wolves, what that means in the scriptural senses, then we study Gods Word to find out. The wolves can be seen by their actions, but wolves ARE an internal issue of sin and evil. This much is certain. And if anyone manages to have enough interest to get that far in their studies, then they'll also realize that we are no better than they.

Romans 3:
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

No wolves are able to submit to Gods Disclosures or Discourses. They will instead, refuse to hear and likewise refuse to apply to Gods knowledge, distributed, personally.

So how might we perceive internal wolves? By their actions, of course.

Acts 20:29
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The above is called double emphasis, where the Holy Spirit speaks surety. Did this happen? Absolutely it did. The "doctrine" of the Nicolatians was brought up before the end of the Bible, Rev. 2:15 for example, because this doctrine was in the churches.

Nicolaitans = "destruction of people"

Jesus hates this doctrine. Why? Because this doctrine refuses to see people as scripture sees them, in the captor/captive relationship. And rather seeking to "divide" people from their captors and save them, it instead, destroys both captor and captive.

The captors will assuredly be destroyed. But we are to hope to the end, for every person.

And YES, God has PREDESTINED the CAPTORS to eternal hell, beyond any uncertainty.

There are no demons in this teaching from Jesus.

They are only "assumed" and interjected into the teaching by you.

If you can identify any demons from these verses then do so, or otherwise drop your illegitimate claim.



16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will deliver you up to councils and scourge you in their synagogues. Matthew 10:16-17

JLB

 

[chessman]

I see pors/cons to exclusive sects. To me, if you love the Lord, I could fellowship with you. But on the otherhand, I couldn't sit under leadership that taught doctrine that just flat out contradicted plain Scripture.

I know of Presbyterian denominations (some small) where you would never be allowed to become a member if you were not a card-carrying supporter of the Westminster Confession of Faith and a supporter of TULIP Calvinism.

Whew! Talk about confusing. I could come up with three or four different ways to interpret just one paragraph within the WCoF. If their goal was to clarify various positions, they failed, IMO. Still though, the WCoF doesn't confess that they have a "sole lock" on "all truth". It only addresses what it confesses. Not "all truth". Which was my question to smaller

I know of no denomination that makes that claim. Including the one I mentioned.

There is a small, restrictive group known as the Exclusive Brethren (a strict version of the Christian Brethren - J N Darby kind) that excommunicates people who don't believe as they believe. In my country, it is a very small group. Worldwide, they have about 43,000 people (source).

No wonder they only have 43,000 worldwide members. "We're quite happy to have our beliefs questioned, ethically debated, and points of religion looked at. That's not a problem. We don't mind being criticised." This doesn't sound like they make a claim to have a "sole lock" on "all truth" to me. But maybe, IDK and the article doesn't say. And with only a small number of members, It's not a major sect. Plus, they can't spell criticized properly

However, there is breadth in some other denominations like Southern Baptists where there are both Arminians and Calvinists.

I'm southern Baptist. Although I'll have a beer now and again. I disagree that drinking a little alcohol is a sin. In fact, I know it's not. And all my past/present pastors agree. Many lay people don't though. Whatever. Not sure what they do with Jesus drinking wine or commanding it. But whatever, we all love the Lord.

 

[OzSpen]

Plus, they can't spell criticized properly

It's time you read a British dictionary, such as the Cambridge Dictionary, and its spelling of criticise.

The Australian Macquarie Dictionary spells it 'criticise' and notes it is the equivalent of criticize.

There are other parts of the English speaking world beside the Americas. North Americans can sometimes forget that!

No wonder they only have 43,000 worldwide members. "We're quite happy to have our beliefs questioned, ethically debated, and points of religion looked at. That's not a problem. We don't mind being criticised." This doesn't sound like they make a claim to have a "sole lock" on "all truth" to me. But maybe, IDK and the article doesn't say.

I have personal experience from people in this Exclusive Brethren sect who lived on sugar cane farms over the road from my parents. One of the EB farmers accepted the evangelical beliefs of the local Baptist church (there was only one in town) and was excommunicated.

Oz

 

[FreeGrace]

The answer to the question is an absolutely yes ! Many scriptures indicate that, if we receive them honestly. Heres one that teaches it by antithesis 1 Thess 5:9

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

This statement presupposes that God has appointed some to wrath, that word appointed tithémi also means destined, to decree one to be subject to wrath,

All whom God did not choose in Christ and to obtain Salvation by Him, He destined, appointed, decreed them to wrath. This is a work of God, and as it is written Acts 15:18

18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

If 1 Thess 5:19 is the antithesis to the title's question, please provide the verse that gives us the thesis, because how could there be an "antithesis" if there is no thesis?

 

[Particular Baptist]

That's part of the problem. You quoted a Greek lexicon (which you don't read) which gave a meaning that is nowhere found in Thayer's lexicon.

'Simply believing my bible' is not so simple after all as it had to be translated by some who knew Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek grammar. Knowing the meaning of a verse by using one English translation is not a good idea IMHO.

If one does not read Hebrew or Greek, the simplest solution I know is to compare about 6 good translations (e.g. NKJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, LEB, NLT, NASB) to see the diversity of meaning and then reach a conclusion.

I know there are many people like you who do not read the original languages, and I recommend comparison of translations.

Blessings,
Oz

How strange ALL the versions mentioned use the Nestle-Aland UBS text and the Wescott-Hort Theory which is based (Metzger admitted in a letter avalible from biblefortoday.org to Kirk DiVietro it was their base changed very sparingly on the basis of "MS evidence"; moreover, he recognized textual criticism is a Jesuit concoction to destroy sola scriptura) on the rotten Wescott and Hort Text, based on the LXX-derived Vaticanus and Sinai of Origen's authorship from Alexandria, Egypt. All of which doubt Zechariah 13.6, Mark 16.9-20, the Johannine Comma, Jesus' miracle-working power, deity, resurrection and such like. In fact, the word יד yad (H3027) is omitted in each of those Critical text versions in Zechariah 13.6-7. How exactly Protestant or Baptist one is when they use a Rome-sanctioned Bible is a mystery, complete with the ECM letters.

Since that is not the topic, I submit that the absolutist and double predestination theories are theologically bankrupt. The 1677 Second London Confession offers this from the third chapter, Of God's Decree.

3 By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, gsome men and angels are predestinated, or foreor- dained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the hpraise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their ijust condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. ( g 1Ti 5:21; Mat 25:34; h Eph 1:5-6; i Rom 9:22-23; Jude 4)

4 These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their knumber so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. ( k 2Ti 2:19; Joh 13:18)

5 Those of mankind lthat are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, mwithout any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto. ( lEph 1:4,9,11; Rom 8:30; 2Ti 1:9; 1Th 5:9; m Rom 9:13,16; Eph 2:5,12)

6 As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreor- dained nall the means thereunto; wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, oare redeemed by Christ, are effectually pcalled unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith qunto salvation; neither are any other redeemed by Christ, or effectually called, jus- tified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect ronly.

(n1Pe1:2;2Th2:13; o1Th5:9-10; pRom8:30;2Th2:13; q1Pe1:5; rJoh10:26,17:9,6:64)

 

[Free]

How strange ALL the versions mentioned use the Nestle-Aland UBS text and the Wescott-Hort Theory which is based...on the rotten Wescott and Hort Text, based on the LXX-derived Vaticanus and Sinai of Origen's authorship from Alexandria, Egypt. All of which doubt Zechariah 13.6, Mark 16.9-20, the Johannine Comma, Jesus' miracle-working power, deity, resurrection and such like.

What do you mean by "doubt"? Are you saying that all the versions OzSpen listed "doubt...Jesus' miracle-working power, deity, resurrection and such like"?

 

[OzSpen]

How strange ALL the versions mentioned use the Nestle-Aland UBS text and the Wescott-Hort Theory which is based (Metzger admitted in a letter avalible from biblefortoday.org to Kirk DiVietro it was their base changed very sparingly on the basis of "MS evidence"; moreover, he recognized textual criticism is a Jesuit concoction to destroy sola scriptura) on the rotten Wescott and Hort Text, based on the LXX-derived Vaticanus and Sinai of Origen's authorship from Alexandria, Egypt. All of which doubt Zechariah 13.6, Mark 16.9-20, the Johannine Comma, Jesus' miracle-working power, deity, resurrection and such like. In fact, the word יד yad (H3027) is omitted in each of those Critical text versions in Zechariah 13.6-7. How exactly Protestant or Baptist one is when they use a Rome-sanctioned Bible is a mystery, complete with the ECM letters.

Since that is not the topic, I submit that the absolutist and double predestination theories are theologically bankrupt. The 1677 Second London Confession offers this from the third chapter, Of God's Decree.

Why don't you admit your bias upfront. You do it in the footer with your statement: 'Particular Baptist holds to the Authorized Version in English, supports only the Byzantine text and Second Rabbinic Bible as well maintains as a guide the 1689 Second London Confession, five solae and Baptist Catechism of 1695'.

You are a KJV-Only in your biblical textual criticism. I could spend many posts critiquing Erasmus and how he gathered the material for the Textus Receptus (TR) which the KJV uses. He couldn't find the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in a Greek MSS, so what did he do? He translated that horrible, despicable, RCC Latin Vulgate into Greek and your KJV uses that TR Greek text as your basis for the English NT.

However, not one MSS since the TR was compiled, that has been found that agrees 100% with the Greek translated from the Latin by Erasmus.
And you have the audacity to complain about the Westcott-Hort theory!!

Why are you not supporting the text on which the Wycliffe Bible was translated, or the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Mathews Bible, etc., which were before the KJV (AV)? Could there be a blind spot here?

Oz

 

[Particular Baptist]

What do you mean by "doubt"? Are you saying that all the versions OzSpen listed "doubt...Jesus' miracle-working power, deity, resurrection and such like"?

The Alexandrian School of Origen, father of gnosticism, and his disciples, like their later new aged successors Wescott, Hort, Black, Aland, Kurt Tischendorf, Mme. Blavatsky, author of Holy Satan, Henry Olcott Steele and on their corrupt text (as well as Rudolph Kittel's corrupted 1937 Biblica Hebraica derived from B19 or Codex Leningrad, not the Masorete text) removed Mark 16.9-20. They are the reason Acts 8.37, I Jn. 5.7-8, Jn. 7.53-8.11, 5.4 , Mt. 17.10, 18.11 among about sixteen other passages are doubted or deleted in such versions as in his post. This is in total contrast to the Byzantine or Received Text.

Here is a partial list of the removals, additions and deletions. Here is more information on the topic.

 

[turnorburn]

That's part of the problem. You quoted a Greek lexicon (which you don't read) which gave a meaning that is nowhere found in Thayer's lexicon.

'Simply believing my bible' is not so simple after all as it had to be translated by some who knew Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek grammar. Knowing the meaning of a verse by using one English translation is not a good idea IMHO.

If one does not read Hebrew or Greek, the simplest solution I know is to compare about 6 good translations (e.g. NKJV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, LEB, NLT, NASB) to see the diversity of meaning and then reach a conclusion.

I know there are many people like you who do not read the original languages, and I recommend comparison of translations.

Blessings,
Oz

There isn't a problem with my bible its the KJV.. other versions omit some text and some add to the text.. the KJV has been under attack for quite some time.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Why don't you admit your bias upfront. You do it in the footer with your statement: 'Particular Baptist holds to the Authorized Version in English, supports only the Byzantine text and Second Rabbinic Bible as well maintains as a guide the 1689 Second London Confession, five solae and Baptist Catechism of 1695'.

You are a KJV-Only in your biblical textual criticism. I could spend many posts critiquing Erasmus and how he gathered the material for the Textus Receptus (TR) which the KJV uses. He couldn't find the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation in a Greek MSS, so what did he do? He translated that horrible, despicable, RCC Latin Vulgate into Greek and your KJV uses that TR Greek text as your basis for the English NT.

However, not one MSS since the TR was compiled, that has been found that agrees 100% with the Greek translated from the Latin by Erasmus.
And you have the audacity to complain about the Westcott-Hort theory!!

Why are you not supporting the text on which the Wycliffe Bible was translated, or the Tyndale Bible, Coverdale Bible, Mathews Bible, etc., which were before the KJV (AV)? Could there be a blind spot here?

Oz

What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo from someone who if he were under pain of death could not even properly quote a signature (that does not say I use the Authorized Version alone, because I also support other translations from the Byzantine stream, where Christians in Acts 11 were first so called as well as upon occasion employ lexicons, concordances in addition to commentaries), or admit he derails a thread on predestination to propund his disbelief in the Bible; is there a reliable, accurate translation in any language that is the world of God? Did Jesus lie when he said in Mt. 23.35, Mk. 13.31 or Lu. 21.31 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"?

Brother, there is very little difference between you and Rome on this point: after all, you accept a French priest's theory to defeat biblicism to bring men into their mother church.

You well know the underliying text of Tyndale to the Breeches is the Second Rabbinic Bible and Byzantine text, and that of Wycliff, as much of a Godly man was he takes Latin influences. Not one MANUSCRIPT!? WOW! What a lie! There are aroud 145 manuscripts supporting the critical text, but of the about 5500 5400 (such as all 2431 known lectionaries and 81 papyri) support the TR and associated readings. Your Critical texts have less than one tenth a percent of support, but you have the audacity to ridicule them! What a foolish thing!

Might I advise that we speak of this in another place since this is a predestination thread, not one about Bible translations?