Bible vs. Science

(It also must be a real nuisance for your friends to try and see through the lipstick prints all over that mirror).

1) The God of this world
2) The one true God

Holy spirit must be present within a believer to even discern the difference.

Frank Apisa wrote:

As I said, Rex...please continue to post these rants...because they do much, much more to show how convoluted, twisted, and tortured your logic is in your attempts to make the Bible say other than what it says.

To suppose two gods in order for you to be right is hilarious.

Two Gods, that is what THE WORD says. Not just me.

I did not just rant on with my "own" logic but I backed up what I believe with clear simple "scripture".

Where is your scripture to contradict anything I have proposed?

Your whole premise rests on six scriptures.

"Almost" everything else written in the new testament contradicts your premise.

I am not saying this to show you you are wrong, I am showing this to show you the Bible is teaching CLEARLY a new covenant and that Jesus Christ REVEALS the one true "God".

1Jo 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Comment:
Once this "grace" of God is explained then you cannot read the NT without finding it everywhere.

This "GRACE" has for the most part been lost in today's religion. This is the ideology we are at war with. And you are not part of the solution you are equally part of the conundrum.

Eph 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Comment:
What works can a dead man do to please God Frank?

Ro 8:8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Eph 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


Comment:
Frank, you think the way you do in light of the numerous scriptures that reveal the actual TRUTH?

I submit, maybe you don't want to KNOW God.

You are "guessing" Frank

I love you as a brother in Christ Frank and I would (if this is all true) hate for you to suffer damnation.

In the NEW covenant there is only one "unforgivable" sin..

That is to deny the one true God!

When you deny God you deny new birth/holy spiritual "seed" and seed is permanent and eternal. What spiritual seed do you have Frank. Everyone receives one or the other in the course of their lifetime. If they are too young to decide they are sanctified by their parents belief ot that of the "State" (liberty).

1Co 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Comment: You cannot corrupt the spirit within. You cannot manifest spirit without it present within. Manifestation of the spirit is a "witness" of it's presence within. This witness is proof of one's eternal life.

When your earthly father put earthly seed in you, he put it in you for life. As long as you live he will always be your biological father.

When God puts spiritual seed into you he "creates" it in you for eternal life.

This seed is a "gift" and is not worked for or a wage.

So, a new born believer of God has no more "Christian character" after the new birth than before they were born of spiritual seed. But they now have a means of "power" if they choose to learn to operate and manifest it.

Peace with God

Since it is easy for the christian faithful to convince themselves of the need and justification of the revision of the old testament to enable greater acceptance of governance by and of the bible, why would they not do more editing to clarify or delete the most disputed and ignored stories and interpretations? Surely, if one revision can be touted as unadulterated truth, another revision can be revered as being just as truthful.

Butrflynet wrote:

Since it is easy for the christian faithful to convince themselves of the need and justification of the revision of the old testament to enable greater acceptance of governance by and of the bible, why would they not do more editing to clarify or delete the most disputed and ignored stories and interpretations? Surely, if one revision can be touted as unadulterated truth, another revision can be revered as being just as truthful.

There is always the possibility that some actually do have an understanding of the transistion of the Old to New Testament that others don't.

Butrflynet,

I do not want to assume anything here so bear with me if you will. You say If Christians will accept..... Now, I do realize that some denominations have done this very thing, but I am wondering if you are thinking of anything very specific?

I don't have anything specific in mind. I am asking in general terms, as stated in the question. If I wanted to know about something specific, it would be rather silly not to reference it in the question, wouldn't it?


As for the accepting one revision easier than another, I can only speculate. I would imagine that for some, the what some call "watered down doctrines" would conform more to what the individual wants it to say. If they don't like a certain thing, well, they change it so that it conforms to what they want it to say. It doesn't change God or God's word, it just changes the person's concept and perception of it.

How do you know it doesn't change what is represented as a god's word? There have been so many translations from language to language and revisions and interpretations of the text. Which does one choose to believe as the true word, and how does one go about making such a choice under those circumstances? What makes one version of what is sold as a god's word more valid than another version of what is a god's word? Is ones faith in the word of a god or in the trust of the person representing that it is the word of a god? (Is the belief in the product or the salesperson?)

If, as Rex says, there are times when abuse of that trust is a good thing if it manipulates people toward thinking correctly, how do you continue to have faith that it is the word of a god and not the salesperson's word?

For instance, many believe in the everyone is saved and will go to heaven doctrine. I can understand that they care and don't want anyone to not go to heaven but in their caring they actually hurt others because they aren't given the complete truth about there being a heaven and a hell.

And then there are some that don't believe there is a hell at all. I can't speak for everyone or even the majority, Butrflynet. But, that is how I see it.

Faith/belief in what? That the person doing the translation of the text did a fair representation of what was originally scripted as being the word of a god and that the original scripter accurately heard and recorded what a god said?

Doesn't that leave you rather vulnerable to the manipulative abuses as described by Rex? How do you protect yourself from such, or does your faith include acceptance of that vulnerability?

Faith/belief in what? That the person doing the translation of the text did a fair representation of what was originally scripted as being the word of a god and that the original scripter accurately heard and recorded what a god said?

Doesn't that leave you rather vulnerable to the manipulative abuses as described by Rex? How do you protect yourself from such, or does your faith include acceptance of that vulnerability?

Faith/belief in what? That the person doing the translation of the text did a fair representation of what was originally scripted as being the word of a god and that the original scripter accurately heard and recorded what a god said?

Doesn't that leave you rather vulnerable to the manipulative abuses as described by Rex? How do you protect yourself from such, or does your faith include acceptance of that vulnerability?