Is the Devil bound right now...?

[Bowman]

not wasting time here to listen to bowman and just curious why he picks a sign of the Kaballah as is avatar

The Trinity did originate in the OT.

 

[Bowman]

I just better pray for you

I pray that you will someday comprehend exactly what Jesus did for YOU at The Cross instead of diminishing it.

Jesus bound Satan at The Cross, so that you could freely worship the Triune God.

Instead, people like you reject this, and give all glory and power to a bound fallen angel.

Pathetic...

 

[Dan_473]

You don't base a doctrine on one verse...

very true!

I considered discussing other passages with you, but since you seem to be willing to use at least one conclusion that differs from the vast majority of greek scholarship, I don't think there would be much benefit in discussing further scriptures.

 

[Dan_473]

No.

It is for the bias of the translator.

Theos is usually arthrous in scripture, but how many times do renderings state 'The God'...?







Every word should be literal, and impart the same meaning as the original - otherwise, the word becomes borrowed...





Several honest translations show (the) in parenthesis.

Few, if any, translations show their exegesis.







My approach has always been to compare scripture to scripture....and, in doing so, showing overwhelming support that Satan is presently bound.

Your approach is to ignore any, and all, passages that contradict your world view.

Keep giving Satan power he doesn't have, Dan!

we've already been over the role of the article here. every translated word must be placed by a human, and is therefore artifical.

I agree that you compare scripture to scripture. but, the translation and meaning that you attach to scripture is different from that used by the vast majority of scholarship.

 

[Bowman]

very true!

I considered discussing other passages with you, but since you seem to be willing to use at least one conclusion that differs from the vast majority of greek scholarship, I don't think there would be much benefit in discussing further scriptures.

That's a pretty lame excuse, even for you, Dan.

Translation: you barely could must up the effort to address one verse, much less the others that clearly and irrefutably collapse your worldview.

 

[Bowman]

we've already been over the role of the article here. every translated word must be placed by a human, and is therefore artifical.

According to your logic, then wherever the Greek NT quotes the Hebrew OT, it is man made and artificial.

Is this the best excuse you can come up with, Dan...?

I agree that you compare scripture to scripture. but, the translation and meaning that you attach to scripture is different from that used by the vast majority of scholarship.

No.

I would be impressed if you could exegetically back up that statement...

 

[Dan_473]

It is in the plural.

if you're talking about διαβολος G1228 A-NSM, that appears to be singular.

as does the verb "walks" περιπατει G4043 G5719 V-PAI-3S

and the pronoun at the beginning of verse 9, ω G3739 R-DSM.

from
Unbound Bible
wescott-hort, parsed

 

[Bowman]

if you're talking about διαβολος G1228 A-NSM, that appears to be singular.

as does the verb "walks" περιπατει G4043 G5719 V-PAI-3S

and the pronoun at the beginning of verse 9, ω G3739 R-DSM.

from
Unbound Bible
wescott-hort, parsed

No, Dan....we were talking about another passage......one that you don't want to discuss...

 

[Dan_473]

That's a pretty lame excuse, even for you, Dan.

Translation: you barely could must up the effort to address one verse, much less the others that clearly and irrefutably collapse your worldview.

no, I am willing to pay attention to what the vast majority of greek scholars have to say.

so, we have no common ground on which to discuss the scriptures.

 

[Bowman]

no, I am willing to pay attention to what the vast majority of greek scholars have to say.

so, we have no common ground on which to discuss the scriptures.

Show us the exegesis of one of your trusted Greek scholars, as applied directly to 1 Peter 5.8.

 

[Dan_473]

According to your logic, then wherever the Greek NT quotes the Hebrew OT, it is man made and artificial.

Is this the best excuse you can come up with, Dan...?

I think every ot quote in the nt is the work of human translation.

there is no problem with God inspiring people to place human writings into inspired scripture. for example, Paul quotes a greek poet.

 

[Dan_473]

No.

I would be impressed if you could exegetically back up that statement...

I've already done that in discussing the original language and grammar of 1 peter 5.

 

[Bowman]

I think every ot quote in the nt is the work of human translation.

there is no problem with God inspiring people to place human writings into inspired scripture. for example, Paul quotes a greek poet.

So...when Jesus quoted the Hebrew, in Greek, was it divinely inspired, or just His human nature?

 

[Bowman]

I've already done that in discussing the original language and grammar of 1 peter 5.

No, Dan.

But....keep saying that you did if that makes you happy...

 

[Dan_473]

No, Dan....we were talking about another passage......one that you don't want to discuss...

first tourist wrote

James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

If the devil is bound why does is say in the bible to resist him causing him to flee?

1 Peter 5:8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Prowls around? How can he prowl around if he is bound.

then

The context of James 4 is directed at those that are warring, murdering and committing adultery; the ones that are following demonic activities....of which, is the 'power' of Satan.

There is no mention of Satan possessing anyone, or directly causing the events in James 4.






We already covered this one-hit-wonder verse numerous times in this thread...and are covering it right now, again.

The word 'the' does not appear in the Greek, and, contextually, applies to 'a' demon...

then

that is just your opinion and why not the plural if it is non denotative?

it seemed clear to me that psalm6819 was referring to the end of what you wrote in your post,
"The word 'the' does not appear in the Greek, and, contextually, applies to 'a' demon",
which would refer to tourist's quote of 1 peter 5:8.

then

It is in the plural.

so I wrote

if you're talking about διαβολος G1228 A-NSM, that appears to be singular.

as does the verb "walks" περιπατει G4043 G5719 V-PAI-3S

and the pronoun at the beginning of verse 9, ω G3739 R-DSM.

from
Unbound Bible
wescott-hort, parsed

 

[Ahwatukee]

no, I am willing to pay attention to what the vast majority of greek scholars have to say.

so, we have no common ground on which to discuss the scriptures.

Hello Dan-473,

By now I believe that you have come to the conclusion that, no matter what verse of scriptures you use to try and convince Bowman, you will fail and that because he is an Amillennialist/preterist. They have a pre-paged, man-made interpretation for most of the Biblical topics. Therefore, when any given Biblical topic is presented to them, they immediately apply that pre-packaged interpretation and they do not adhere to what the scripture says, even though they swear that they are. This becomes obvious if you were to present Rev.20:1-3, which is simple in its understanding:

* An angel comes down out of heaven

* He has the key to the Abyss and a great chain in his hand

* He seizes the dragon who is identified as the devil and Satan

* He throws him into the Abyss and seals and locks it over him for a thousand years

To the average person, the above attributes are obvious and easy to understand from the scripture. But when the amillennialist is presented with this scripture, they are going to ignore the context of that scripture and take you on a rollercoaster ride throughout other scriptures that are irrelevant to Rev.20:1-3. An example of this is where they get their name "amillennialist" meaning "not a thousand years," even though Rev.20:1-7 uses the words "thousand years" six individual times. And in support of their position, they will quote Ps.50:10 which says, "for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills." The idea being that, since the number of cattle and the number of hills is symbolic for an unknown number, they apply this formula to Rev.20:1-3 so that the thousand years mentioned is also an unknown number. Yeah I know, right?!

I'm convinced that they wouldn't even believe the Lord himself if he was standing before them, attempting to correct the errors of their teachings.

 

[Dan_473]

No, Dan....we were talking about another passage......one that you don't want to discuss...

but I'll happily discuss any passage with anyone who will both discuss in a respectful fashion and is willing to pay attention to what the vast majority of greek scholars have to say.

 

[psalm6819]

bowman your avatar is the Sefirot or quite similar, why??? are you jewish? do you espouse the teachings of mystics?

 

[psalm6819]

So...when Jesus quoted the Hebrew, in Greek, was it divinely inspired, or just His human nature?

Jesus would have quoted from the LXX as that was what was commonly used at that time

 

[Bowman]

This becomes obvious if you were to present Rev.20:1-3, which is simple in its understanding:

* An angel comes down out of heaven

* He has the key to the Abyss and a great chain in his hand

* He seizes the dragon who is identified as the devil and Satan

* He throws him into the Abyss and seals and locks it over him for a thousand years

To the average person, the above attributes are obvious and easy to understand from the scripture. But when the amillennialist is presented with this scripture, they are going to ignore the context of that scripture and take you on a rollercoaster ride throughout other scriptures that are irrelevant to Rev.20:1-3. .

That must be one powerful 'angel' to be able to toss Satan around like a rag doll.

Why not admit that the same God that cast Satan out of Heaven, also cast Satan into the abyss...?