You do know that "hell is paved with good intentions" right?

If you still want to harp ill thought of me, then good day to you sir and God bless.

If you're triggered by that and want to use that to avoid answering, nvm then.

I will not take kindly to slander and lies propagated by anyone or you.

I don't take kindly to what is said that the aspect of my teaching is with intent to ask people to sin.

Who are you to put your words into my mouth?

*I'm being nice and trying to be open to you and you have the gumption to step on my head.



This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Oct 10 2019, 02:47 PM

You win liao la since you are the moderator.

This has nothing to do with me as moderator for this thread, but you being condescending by your buruk prasangka and that in turn was based on your miscomprehension of how you understand what I teach.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Oct 10 2019, 03:10 PM

GENESIS.3:6-7 (NKJV) = 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

The Word of God says you are wrong. Adam only knew that human nakedess was evil/bad(= unlike the good or clothed image of God) after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not before Adam took the fruit.
....... IOW, Adam only gained moral consciousness of good and evil only after he took the fruit, not before.
_______ _______

The Story of the Creation and Fall of Man at GENESIS.1-3:

(1) Man was originally created to tend and keep the earth - GENESIS.2:15. Instead, Man has been destroying the earth and at an increasing rate.

(2) Woman has been cursed by God to suffer pain during childbirth and emotional rule/abuse from her husband/bf/lover after falling in love with him.
....... In comparison, female animals do not suffer pain in giving birth, eg cows.

(3) Man has been cursed by God to suffer laborious work to earn his living and suffer physical death.
....... In comparison, non-domesticated living things and animals do not have to suffer such, especially those that live in forests/jungles that far away from destructive human activities.

(4) Satan has been cursed by God to crawl the earth and be at spiritual enmity with Man. Satan/demons' spiritual food is the decaying bodies of Man(= eat dust) as he returns to dust after death = Satan comes to kill, steal and destroy.
= Satan has no freedom to do other stuffs as he liked.
.

Adam and this "new" earth was created by God(GEN.1:1 & 2) to replace a very old earth of Neanderthals and dinosaurs that was ruled by Lucifer, one of God's 3 archangels, before he fell - EZEK.28:14, ISA.14:12, REV.12:4-9.

Erm Nope. they fully understood what was said by God. they knew it would be wrong


Genesis 3:2-3 (NIV)
…2 The woman answered the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden, 3 but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat of it or touch it, or you will die.’

What Jesus will says when He read this thread?
I believe the way to eternal life is not an exam on how much you understand Bible.
To be Christian is simple as to know God's love, Jesus died for our sins and to love one another. That's my theology.

to which I agree and I know where you are coming from.

tq.

Not helped further when the simple questions are evaded.

No. He did not.

It only seems ambiguous because He had it written in Hebrew and we are now reading it in mostly English. There is no direct translation of languages in its perfect context and intentions.

Therefore, study and prove yourself to be a good workman.

Questions laid with discrimination thoughts, you're not being sincere either.

Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament. Even if the Bible remained only in those languages, there is bound to be different interpretations by different people reading it.

Originally in Hebrew even for the NT. Or at least the gospels.

There you go. WE wear Greek mindset to interpretation nowadays. Very different from Hebrew

This post has been edited by prophetjul: Oct 10 2019, 04:13 PM

Most biblical scholars adhere to the view that the Greek text of the New Testament is the original version.[10] However, there does exist an alternative view which maintains that it is a translation from an Aramaic original, a position known as Peshitta Primacy (also known in primarily non-scholarly circles as "Aramaic primacy"). Although this view has its adherents, the vast majority of scholars dispute this position citing linguistic, historical, and textual inconsistencies.[11] At any rate, since most of the texts are written by diaspora Jews such as Paul the Apostle and his possibly Gentile companion, Luke, and to a large extent addressed directly to Christian communities in Greek-speaking cities (often communities consisting largely of Paul's converts, which appear to have been non-Jewish in the majority), and since the style of their Greek is impeccable,[12] a Greek original is more probable than a translation.

For the gospels, probably you are right.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Oct 10 2019, 04:17 PM

You don't have to be sarcastic when even you tried to change the meaning

Romans 5:20 (KJV) - Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

You implied sinners occasionally became more guilty by the knowledge of the law but that is not what it says. The word is sin there not sinner.

You have a tendency to cut and paste without links!

No. Nowadays we have Hebrew scholars who look at the sentence syntax and idioms, etc in the gospels, and some of them do not make any sense in Greek.
However when they are translated back into Hebrew, it all makes sense.

What's an 'evil eye' in Greek? Nothing.

And? Sin is committed by what? Itself? Look away is not the same as turn away?

dude, don't contradict what you're saying here.

When you say sinners occasionally became more guilty by the knowledge of the law, that is implying sinner having more conscious of guilt not unless you're agreeing with me that the law will cause them to commit more sin.

So which is it now?