The gospel in Genesis.

[sundance]

And so you continue to dodge my questions.
I guess you're not interested in actual "discussion" (which begs the question of why you're in a "discussion" forum, but you're apparently not willing to answer that question.)

That's unfortunate.

Oh well, I'll reserve my right to continue to respond to your posts for the benefit of the lurkers, knowing that you're not interested in responding.

Have a nice day.

A conversation involves two parties. You're trying to control this conversation. I would like for you to acknowledge that you rephrased what you stated earlier.

I don't have any issue answering your question. I "believe" ( please prove me wrong ) that once I answer your question, you will ignore your mistake.

However, I will go ahead and answer.

Okay, so if you didn't want anyone's explanation, then why did you ask?
If you don't want to discuss the issue, why are you on a discussion forum?

I have reputable referenced for what the English word "might" means. I don't need your assistance to understand the meaning of this English word.

But despite your presumptuous claim to understand all things, I'll respond anyway (since this is a discussion forum, after all). A very common context for finding "might" in English translations is in what Greek scholars call "hina" clauses. "Hina" is a Greek word meaning "that", or "so that", and it is frequently used as a "purpose" clause, to explain the purpose of an action. Greek grammar is incredibly precise, and the verb in the "hina" clause HAS to be in the subjunctive mood, requiring the translation "might". This is NO WAY indicates "uncertainty", even of the result of the purpose is 100% certain, the grammar still requires the verb to be in the subjunctive clause.

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

I wasn't referencing "hina". I was referencing

ἵνα ἔχω

Which is also found in identical manner in

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Notice the conditional usage of "that I may have"......

I noticed you just joined yesterday. Maybe it's too soon for you to represent yourself as a know-it-all. Just sayin'./QUOTE]
Using your logic, since you've been here for some time, we can safely assume you graduated to a "know-it-all" a long time ago.

 

[Theo1689]

A conversation involves two parties. You're trying to control this conversation. I would like for you to acknowledge that you rephrased what you stated earlier.

A conversation involves two parties. YOU are trying to control this conversation. I would like for YOU to first answer the questions *I* asked you, before you made your comment. Once you do, then I will be more than happy to address your issue.

THAT is how civil discussion works.

However, I will go ahead and answer.

I have reputable referenced for what the English word "might" means. I don't need your assistance to understand the meaning of this English word.

You have "reputable referenced"?
Sorry, but since you don't seem to understand proper English, I'm not the least bit confident that you understand what "might" means. Especially when you have no context, and because you don't seem to realize that the meaning is determined by the underlying Greek.

Having said that, if you are truly not interested in hearing from others what it means, then it was obviously a poor decision by you to ask in the first place.

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Thank you for proving my point.
Do you see the word, "that" in your verse? That comes from the Greek word, "hina":

John 10:10 ὁ κλέπτης οὐκ ἔρχεται εἰ μὴ ἵνα κλέψῃ καὶ θύσῃ καὶ ἀπολέσῃ· ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἵνα ζωὴν ἔχωσιν καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν.

That means that there are two "hina" clauses in this verse, explaining the PURPOSE for Christ's coming, He is coming "for the purpose of" us having eternal life. There is no "uncertainty" involved (it doen't say or imply "maybe".

So thank you again for proving me right.

I wasn't referencing "hina". I was referencing

You clearly have no clue what you are referencing, since the "might" you were asking about is IN a "hina" clause.

Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that ("ἵνα") I may have eternal life?

Notice the conditional usage of "that I may have"......

How about that? Another "hina" ("purpose") clause.

You can't seriously believe that he is asking what things he has to do, and even then he "might not" get eternal life?

 

[Leatherneck0311]

There you go proof texting again. ?

Lol, believing scripture as it is written is the opposite of proof texting.

 

[Carbon]

Lol, believing scripture as it is written is the opposite of proof texting.

Believing it and actually understanding it will help you not to proof text. I hope

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Believing it and actually understanding it will help you not to proof text. I hope

Got ya and your argument is what that Jesus did not mean for whosoever believes will be saved. If you stopped twisting scripture to fit a particular doctrine you just might get the real meaning.

 

[Carbon]

Got ya

No, I dont think you do.

and your argument is what that Jesus did not mean for whosoever believes will be saved.

Sure he meant it. Do you think he didn’t?

If you stopped twisting scripture to fit a particular doctrine you just might get the real meaning.

Lol, ?

 

[Theo1689]

FYI...

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

I wasn't referencing "hina". I was referencing

ἵνα ἔχω

"The most frequent use of ἵνα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accomplished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordinate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to . . .)."

" We must not suppose that this use of the subjunctive necessarily implies any doubt about the fulfillment of the verbal action on the part of the speaker. This may or may not be so; each case must be judged on its own merits. The subjunctive is used, however, because it answers the implicit deliberative question. Further, many instances of purpose clauses shade off into result as well, especially when the divine will is in view."
-- Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 472 (emphasis mine).

 

[Theo1689]

Got ya and your argument is what that Jesus did not mean for whosoever believes will be saved. If you stopped twisting scripture to fit a particular doctrine you just might get the real meaning.

You twist Carbon's claims, and you want to throw around accusations of "twisting" to others?

 

[Carbon]

You twist Carbon's claims, and you want to throw around accusations of "twisting" to others?

Lol, I’m getting used to it.
Quite common around here. ?

 

[Theo1689]

Just being systemic. No need to try to "label" me.

You rephrased what you said and pretended you didn't. It is that simple.

"pretended"?

Hey @Carbon , looks like you were right... The poster DOES seem to fancy himself a mind reader! ? ? ?

 

[Carbon]

"pretended"?

Hey @Carbon , looks like you were right... The poster DOES seem to fancy himself a mind reader! ? ? ?

Yep. ?

 

[Leatherneck0311]

No, I dont think you do.

Sure he meant it. Do you think he didn’t?

Lol, ?

Your thinking is out of wack. when Jesus said for whosoever believes will be saved seems to be a stumbling block for many Calvinist. Paul told the jailer he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved , which exposes Calvinism’s errors about their own personal responsibility to obey God’s commands. Then along comes folks and change what Jesus said and meant by spinning man made beliefs into God’s word. The qualifiers that Calvinist place on believing are not in scripture Y’all kind of remind me of how the Pharisees and Sadducees placed barriers around God’s word with their own man made qualifiers and Traditions.

 

[Carbon]

Your thinking is out of wack.

Nope. I think your just confused bud.

when Jesus said for whosoever believes will be saved seems to be a stumbling block for many Calvinist.

Nope, not at all. ?

Paul told the jailer he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved , which exposes Calvinism’s errors about their own personal responsibility to obey God’s commands.

Lol, we believe Paul.
Explain these errors? Thanks ?

Then along comes folks and change what Jesus said and meant by spinning man made beliefs into God’s word.

Yes, your proof of that.

The qualifiers that Calvinist place on believing are not in scripture Y’all kind of remind me of how the Pharisees and Sadducees placed barriers around God’s word with their own man made qualifiers and Traditions.

Yes, no offense bud but you are very confused.
It makes me feel bad, can I help? What In particular would you like to discuss?!

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Nope. I think your just confused bud.

Nope, not at all. ?

Lol, we believe Paul.
Explain these errors? Thanks ?

Yes, your proof of that.

Yes, no offense bud but you are very confused.
It makes me feel bad, can I help? What In particular would you like to discuss?!

I would like to discuss your false statement that I supposedly said God failed. Still waiting for a post # or a quote. Exposing the errors of Calvinism does not equate to God failing the failure is that of Calvinism.

 

[Theo1689]

Paul told the jailer he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved , which exposes Calvinism’s errors about their own personal responsibility to obey God’s commands.

What "errors" are you referring to about "personal responsibility to obey God's commands"?

Calvinism doesn't teach anti-nominanism.

Then along comes folks and change what Jesus said and meant by spinning man made beliefs into God’s word. The qualifiers that Calvinist place on believing are not in scripture

What "qualifiers" would those allegedly be?

 

[Carbon]

I would like to discuss your false statement that I supposedly said God failed. Still waiting for a post # or a quote. Exposing the errors of Calvinism does not equate to God failing the failure is that of Calvinism.

Ok point me to the post. Let’s look it over

 

[Theo1689]

Is sin the will of God?

Was selling Joseph into slavery the will of God (Gen. 50:20)?
Was it sin?

Was Assyria attacking Israel (Isa. 10:5-7) the will of God?
Was it sin?

Was murdering the innocent son of God the will of God (Acts 4:27-28)?
Was it sin?

 

[Leatherneck0311]

Ok point me to the post. Let’s look it over

You said I said God failed and your answer is for me to point you to a statement you made ? Lol, your credibility is lacking there bud. Just so you know bearing false witness is still a sin. Do Calvinist respect anything or take anything seriously or is it all just a big joke ?

 

[Carbon]

You said I said God failed and your answer is for me to point you to a statement you made ?

That’s not good enough. If it bothers you that much point me to the post.

Lol, your credibility is lacking there bud. Just so you know bearing false witness is still a sin. Do Calvinist respect anything or take anything seriously or is it all just a big joke ?

Your man centered beliefs are unacceptable.
sorry ?

 

[Theo1689]

Just being systemic. No need to try to "label" me.

You rephrased what you said and pretended you didn't. It is that simple.

First of all, I didn't "pretend" anything. So maybe you should stop making false and insulting claims about others.

Secondly, you haven't answered my questions yet, but I'm guessing you think you did, so I'll have to settle for that.

Regarding my comment, I guess I assumed too much about what you stated, and I misspoke, so I apologize. I should have instead asked for clarification. You see, "The work of God is that man believes" is simply a statement by Jesus, so claiming you believe it doesn't really communicate anything. So perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "the work of God is that man believes". How is man believing a "work" of God, in your mind?

Perhaps you can elaborate.
Or perhaps you aren't interested in "discussion" in a "discussion" forum.

Toodles!