water baptism in Jesus' Name.

[Dino246]

Clearly, "should" is less certain than "shall", by definition.

I "should" be able to fix my car on Sunday...iffy.

I "shall" be able to fix my car on Sunday...a more absolute statement.

More confidence in the latter statement.

That's what happens when you read 400-year-old English through 21st-century eyes. You assume that the meanings of words haven't changed over time, when in fact many have changed dramatically.

 

[Dino246]

I have already proven it by giving scripture to substantiate my points in most cases if not in every case.

You might think you have proven your case, but you haven't, because I'm not convinced.

Again, if you aren't willing to point out a specific post with which I disagreed, don't blather on about your claims to proof.

 

[heartwashed]

You might think you have proven your case, but you haven't, because I'm not convinced.

Again, if you aren't willing to point out a specific post with which I disagreed, don't blather on about your claims to proof.

Sorry, you are asking me to do work that is tedious and I just don't feel like doing it.

But, the evidence is in the posts; and those who have been paying attention from the beginning will see that I have indeed backed up my claims with scripture and that you have even x'd a few statements that were backed up by scripture.

 

[Dino246]

You should put your trust in the more absolute promises of scripture; rather than in the promises that are "iffy".

Show one promise of Scripture that is "absolute" rather than "iffy". An "if" in the context (even implied) renders the promise "iffy".

 

[heartwashed]

That's what happens when you read 400-year-old English through 21st-century eyes. You assume that the meanings of words haven't changed over time, when in fact many have changed dramatically.

You are advocating the idea that we cannot understand the Bible unless we know what the words meant 400 yrs ago.

For the most part, what they meant 400 yrs ago is what they mean today.

Therefore we can understand the Bible simply by reading it and taking it at face value.

 

[heartwashed]

Show one promise of Scripture that is "absolute" rather than "iffy". An "if" in the context (even implied) renders the promise "iffy".

Mark 16:16, as opposed to John 3:16.

You should have expected that answer.

 

[Magenta]

You should put your trust in the more absolute promises of scripture; rather than in the promises that are "iffy".

God's promises are not "iffy" despite the fact you repeatedly say so. Shame on you for even suggesting it.

 

[Dino246]

Sorry, you are asking me to do work that is tedious and I just don't feel like doing it.

Ah... you just want to throw shade from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy.

Whatever.

 

[Dino246]

Mark 16:16, as opposed to John 3:16.

You should have expected that answer.

You picked a doozie with which to fail: there are three implied "if" statements in Mark 16:16, and the passage is not considered Scripture by all readers of Scripture.

 

[heartwashed]

God's promises are not "iffy" despite the fact you repeatedly say so. Shame on you for even suggesting it.

John 3:16 is "iffy"...as opposed to the corresponding Mark 16:16...no shame in saying that whatsoever.

 

[heartwashed]

You picked a doozie with which to fail: there are three implied "if" statements in Mark 16:16, and the passage is not considered Scripture by all readers of Scripture.

Point them out.

Revelation 22:18-19 tells me that it would be a mistake to discount Mark 16:16 as being scripture.

And it is certainly not discounted by all readers of scripture.

I read scripture; and I do not discount it.

 

[heartwashed]

Ah... you just want to throw shade from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy.

Whatever.

Also, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Dino246]

You are advocating the idea that we cannot understand the Bible unless we know what the words meant 400 yrs ago.

Wrong. I don't "advocate ideas"; I say what I mean.

For the most part, what they meant 400 yrs ago is what they mean today.

For the most part, yes. Once you know how words have changed, you should have no trouble.

Therefore we can understand the Bible simply by reading it and taking it at face value.

The basic message, yes. The finer points, as we are discussing here, no.

 

[heartwashed]

Wrong. I don't "advocate ideas"; I say what I mean.


For the most part, yes. Once you know how words have changed, you should have no trouble.


The basic message, yes. The finer points, as we are discussing here, no.

But you are trying to say that the original meaning of "should" and "shall" is different than what we might read them as today.

If we cannot take them at face value, how should we interpret them?

You evidently know what they meant 400 yrs ago...spit it out.

 

[heartwashed]

Wrong. I don't "advocate ideas"; I say what I mean.

You are advocating the idea that we cannot understand the Bible if we merely take it at face value.

 

[Dino246]

Point them out.

1. Whoever believes

2. and is baptized

3. whoever does not believe

Revelation 22:18-19 tells me that it would be a mistake to discount Mark 16:16 as being scripture.

So do you think Tobit and Judith are Scripture? Your reasoning is flawed.

And it is certainly not discounted by all readers of scripture.

You don't read too good.

I read scripture; and I do not discount it.

Obviously, and obviously irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

But you are trying to say that the original meaning of "should" and "shall" is different than what we might read them as today.

If we cannot take them at face value, how should we interpret them?

You evidently know what they meant 400 yrs ago...spit it out.

I gave you enough for you to do the homework. As I said before, I'm not doing your homework for you.

As you say, "I have better things to do with my time."

 

[Dino246]

You are advocating the idea that we cannot understand the Bible if we merely take it at face value.

Wrong. I don't "advocate ideas"; I say what I mean.

 

[Magenta]

John 3:16 is "iffy"...as opposed to the corresponding Mark 16:16...no shame in saying that whatsoever.

John 3:16 is not iffy. We are saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ. This fact is expounded
upon at length over the course of a myriad of verses... many of which do not mention water, such as Mark 16:16.
Properly understood, line by line and precept by precept, we are cleansed and made righteous by His shed blood.

Those with faith in His shed righteous blood SHALL NOT perish.

 

[Magenta]

Are the commandments iffy for you also @heartwashed ??? .

Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt
not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.