Theological Opinions , PART II

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They're a highly professional group of Christian Biblical scholars and you have presented no evidence that contradicts what they said. So there is no reason to disbelieve them, unless you simply want to disbelieve them.

If being infamous for bad translation and tending towards modernism doesn't qualify as a reason to disbelieve them, then I guess not.

But see below:

http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/gree...IV%20errors%22
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivmusli.htm
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-niv1.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/ar...=13%7C18%7C219
http://www.agetwoage.org/NIV.htm

I also cited the ancient view that the soul is the principle of life in the organism; it is quite likely that it is from this that they say that "soul" means the same as "life".

These come from a very brief search. There's a lot more where that came from. I was serious when I said that the NIV was known for being a bad translation.

I see no reason why I should believe them, if they say "soul" does not mean "soul". The trend of expert-worship in modernism, and very much in modernist theology is the only reason, that view that only experts and people who devote their lives to studying biblical languages, cultures, etc. are qualified to say what means what. I reject that view.

You can think that. But there's no reason to .

Well if you insist on interpreting it literally, I guess that means that the head of every sinner will be covered in his own blood, so it seems that the only biblically justifiable form of death penalty is crushing the skull. Clearly, this is not the case, but it is metaphorical. And in the context of soul (I will continue to believe the Scripture means what it says unless presented with real evidence to the contrary. Note: Jedi mink tricks (*wave hand* "This DOESN'T mean soul") do not qualify as real evidence. )

He was speaking of the people of Israel. This was predicted again in the next two chapters, if I recall correctly. And historically, many of them did indeed die.

This is a fallacy common among modern English speakers. "People" is not properly the plural of person, but a singular noun, refering to a tribe, a race, or a nation. The people of Israel of did not die, but was subjugated for a time.

One cannot say, "This speaks of the death of Israel. Over here, we see Israelites A, B, and C died. Therefore, Israel died".

So if I say that physical death is what is described in this context, I'm a contortionist, but if you say it's spiritual death that's described, you're a scholar .

One doesn't have to be a scholar, and I am not. It is simply the plain meaning of the text. Soul means soul; if it doesn't, it shouldn't be written as such.

Down with the justice system! Up with the "flag" of anarchy! And everyone repeat after me: No justice, no justice, no justice, no justice!

This is merely propaganda and delibrate attempt to caricature and mock; like the clip of Al Gore's evil penguin army, only without the humour. Surely, ad hominem arguments aren't necessary?

Is Christianity just? By no means; St. Paul calls it the foolishness of God. Is it anarchical? No, clearly not.

One way in which it helps is that it prevents this particular person from doing the same again. Many times people are able to get out of their prison terms early because of appeals or shortage of space in prison, or for other reasons. Often, these convicts will go on to do the same crimes again.

In all reality, life imprisonment is virtually as effective as . Despite what "Silence of the Lambs" may tell us, murderers very, very rarely escape from high-security penitentiaries.

Also, it is written in the Epistles that sometimes when people are judged in the body, this saves them in spirit.

Are you thinking 1 Peter 4:6?

(NIV) "6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit."

Furthermore, it is just naturally right that everyone should get what they deserve, be it good or bad. But I believe in mercy too, which is why I don't believe in drawing and quartering, even though that might be deserved as a punishment for some crimes.

Then you don't believe in people getting what they deserve.

Syllogism:

Just desserts would be brutal and cruel, something like drawing and quartering.

You believe it is good that we use relatively humane means of execution (such as melting a person), instead of above.

Therefore, you believe it is good that people do not get their just desserts. This follows logically in the absolutely strictest, most perfect sense.

How do you reconcile this with your statement that it is "naturally right" that everyone should get their just desserts?

Further, it may be naturally right, I won't argue that. But I believe that the only way that any civilisation or state can be good is if it is authentically endowed with the Gospel of Christ, so that the only good state must be in some way supernatural.

It's God's Word. I consider God's Word to be holy.

Har, har, har. It is holy in that respect, but I mean that the practice of, say, not mixing fibers for clothing is not especially holy.

Are you saying that you don't believe the Israelites ever made any mistakes in their courts?

No. All I said was that they used a different court system, which had the force of being divinely mandated. Ours does not.

The next comment doesn't seem relevant to the debate, therefore my snippety scissors come out.

Yet when Christ enters people's hearts, he transforms them and makes them righteous, crucifying our iniquity in the process of the Holy Spirit's sanctification. He makes us holy.

Jeez, haven't you heard of imputed righteousness? What kinda Calvinist are you, anyway?

But seriously, while I agree with that (although I don't think it's as instantaneous as you seem to indicate), you wrote of people being "completely good", which I wouldn't imagine you really think is theologically sound.

But anyway, that is a different topic...

Yep! Which doesn't mean all authorities are to have mercy on everyone all the time .

No, it doesn't. But it does indicate that this is the Christian thing to do, and I continue to maintain that a good government must be Christian. God knows, we don't have a good government in the U. S.

This is all extrapolation, and there is nothing in the scripture that implies it. Christians are not under the law but under grace, so long as they abide in that grace.

Of course we are under grace. But grace is by nature the negation of justice. Justice is "the rendering to each of his due", and grace is "a gift freely given, without any merit". The two are mutually exclusive.

Paul says in the Epistles that the Lord will always discipline those he loves. The Father gives us spankings, just as any (or most, I should say) loving fathers will do for their children.

Most loving fathers, however, do not give their children lethal injections. The punishment a father gives his children is corrective.

Justice still exists, but only as a last resort after mercy is offered at every prior opportunity.

The death penalty, when it is invoked, is rarely preceded by an offer of mercy.

I call your attention to a parable; the servant forgiven the ten thousand talents. He, like us, had committed grievous offenses against his Lord and Master. Like Christ, the Master had mercy on him, and forgave him his debt, cancelling any justice. But the servant then went out to find a man who owed him a hundred denarii (if I recall), and proceeded to throttle him and threaten him, and throw him into debtor's prison, until he should pay back what he owed. Was he just in doing so? Of course. But you know how it ends.