Does The Bible Contain Errors And Contradictions

[SkepticThinker]

And, nothing you posted shows they are not wicked. You wanna call it a dead rubber stale mate?

You haven't shown they are wicked. Burden of proof is yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are too many problems with your view of scripture. It's not just in one area but the whole lot.

God never sent His Son into the world to save the whole world. That is rubbish and unbiblical, God sent His Son to save His elect only. There are no scriptures to support the fake theory the God wants to save everyone. I reject such a weak and miserable god who can't achieve his goals. My God is a winner He accomplishes everything He wills to do.

Ummm ...

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hey, you asked and I answered.

Yeah, it is all beliefs. And you don't actually act in the real world, because it is all beliefs, so you didn't even answer at all. That is just a belief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, do you prefer "Bad" or "Sinful" or "Evil" or "Depraved" or "Sinister" or some other description of a wicked person. Like what are you trying to say, are you trying to water down the fact that everyone is born hating God and loving their sin and that their heart is wicked above all things. You can't sidestep the fact, that everyone is born wicked and they deserve all condemnation, age doesn't change the fact at all.

We can all sidestep and ignore it, given that you've not demonstrated the veracity of your claim.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
-Hitch

 

[Kenny]

She stated as fact something about myself, which is not a fact and has not be demonstrated to me as a fact. Just a claim/belief. I reject that claim\belief due to lack of evidence.

As to my second question, how would the use of a double standard be considered "wicked," in your opinion?

I never said you were wicked. And I didn’t say you were wrong in your statement - I said you held a double standard when you applied one standard to one person but placed a different standard on yourself and that was wrong. Whether that was “wicked” or “hypocritical” or “twisted” or just simply “wrong” - would vary person to person.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's obvious you don't know the context of the word in John 3:16 I really don't have time to give you a thorough lesson on this verse as there's quite a bit to consider, so I'll do the lazy thing and refer you to this article which explains it in detail.

One of the most surprising twists of John 3:16 is that we are told God loves the world. We might be tempted to think that there is much about the world for God to love. After all, what’s not to admire about cityscapes and farmlands, fine cuisine and backyard barbecues, classical symphonies and folk ballads, Renaissance paintings and kindergarten squiggles? The world we know is filled with texture, intrigue, opportunity, and cheer. The problem is that for all that is good and interesting and beautiful about the world, it is overrun with sinners. Ever since Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the garden, the world has become a wasteland. No matter how wonderful the world may appear, it is not worthy of God’s redeeming love.

Understanding how undeserving the world is of God’s love is the key to John 3:16. Only then will we appreciate the unexpected gift that God gives. This point was well made many years ago by the esteemed theologian Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield. In his sermon “God’s Immeasurable Love,” Warfield probes the meaning of the term “world” (Greek kosmos) in John 3:16 in order to plumb the depths of God’s love.

What is the meaning of “world” in this passage? Drawing from the insights of Warfield, there are four possible answers.

In the first place, many people believe that “world” means all people without exception. In other words, when John 3:16 says that God loves the world, it means that He loves every person, head for head, equally. The logic goes something like this: God loves every person; Christ died for every person; therefore, salvation is possible for every person. However, this view seems to suggest that God’s love is impotent and Christ’s death is ineffectual. Otherwise, the natural conclusion of this position would be that every person is actually saved rather than just potentially saved. If God loves every person, and Christ died for every person, and God’s love is not impotent, and Christ’s death is not ineffectual, then the only conclusion one can draw is that salvation has been secured for every person. Yet this viewpoint contradicts the Bible’s teaching on God’s judgment as is evidenced by the immediate context in John 3:17–21.

John 3:16 is not about the greatness of the world but about the greatness of God.
Second, others argue that “world” means all people without distinction. This option emphasizes that God loves more than one type of person or ethnic group. The death of Christ on the cross was not only for Jews but also for gentiles. The love of God is not confined to national boundaries but extends to all kinds of nations, tribes, cultures, tongues, and peoples. To this, all God’s people––Arminian and Calvinist alike––say a hearty “Amen.” While this view has the benefit of being undoubtedly right and fits within the larger context of John’s gospel concerning the global identity of the “children of God” (e.g., John 1:9–13; John 4:42), it doesn’t quite capture the jolting contrast between “God so loved” and “the world” that John 3:16 deliberately draws.

Third, a popular nuance of the previous option among Reformed theologians is to argue that “world” in John 3:16 refers to the elect. Throughout John’s gospel, Jesus emphasizes the particularity of His grace. “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37). “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me. . . . I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:14–18). “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:9). “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). And so on. The point is that God’s people are chosen from an unbelieving world. Again, this view strikes an important note by underscoring the biblical doctrine of election, but the focus of the term “world” in John 3:16 is not so much on the identity of God’s people but on the nature of God’s love.

This leads us to the final option. A solid case can be made for believing that “world” refers to the quality of God’s love. Warfield convincingly states:


The world represents sinful humanity and is not worthy of God’s saving love. Apart from the love of God, the world stands under God’s condemnation. But in Christ, believers experience God’s surprising, redeeming, and never-ending love. John 3:16 is not about the greatness of the world but about the greatness of God.

You forgot to cite your source.

What Does “World” Mean in John 3:16?

One of the most surprising twists of John 3:16 is that we are told God loves the world. We might be tempted to think that there is much about the world for God

www.ligonier.org

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not appealing to, the (corrupt human reasoning) here. I'm pointing out how God sees everyone, He sees into the future and He knows every baby is born with a heart that is wicked above all things.

God doesn't need to wait for the criminal to grow up before they rape and murder. He hates them before they are born. It's not His fault He can see the future as if i had already come to pass. That's our problem, the police with for the murderer to kill before they arrest him. God doesn't have the same constraints as the police do, He is sovereign over everyone and everything.

But wait, you're a human too. So how can we trust your reasoning here? Are you claiming to speak for god?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you cite any higher authority to support your ludicrous fantasies. I mean what do you base your opinions upon. Everything I say can be verified by God, but all you have is fantasy confirmed by none other than yourself and nobody else. Bravo, your a self appointed know it all

Oh, it can? Cool, how do we get a hold of God to verify that your claims are true?

 

[Kenny]

Yeah, it is all beliefs. And you don't actually act in the real world, because it is all beliefs, so you didn't even answer at all. That is just a belief.

Beliefs and “real world” doesn’t mean they are different. My belief is that murder is wrong and that doesn’t change in the real world

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said you were wicked.

That's the topic of discussion we are\were involved in.

And I didn’t say you were wrong in your statement - I said you held a double standard when you applied one standard to one person but placed a different standard on yourself and that was wrong. Whether that was “wicked” or “hypocritical” or “twisted” or just simply “wrong” - would vary person to person.

You said this: "When you used a double standard, it is a clear evidence that you are fallen IMV."

 

[Kenny]

That's the topic of discussion we are\were involved in.

OK… not my topic

You said this: "When you used a double standard, it is a clear evidence that you are fallen IMV."

Well… if you hold a double standard, you are quite standing straight, are you? I guess it all depends on ones definition of “fallen”.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spoken like a true unbeliever. Even when they weren’t “failed”.

They are demonstrably refuted. Even you have to know that. Otherwise by the same silly standard the Bible refutes the existence of God. And even I do not make that claim.

 

[Spice]

Spoken like a true unbeliever. Even when they weren’t “failed”.

Please don't tell us, @Kenny, that you believe in all this person is presenting.
I recognize you are a conservative Christian and give that full respect, but not when it comes to the degree of hating and wishing for the harm of others that this OP has clearly stated he believes.

 

[Kenny]

They are demonstrably refuted. Even you have to know that. Otherwise by the same silly standard the Bible refutes the existence of God. And even I do not make that claim.

LOL… only in your imagination - but I support your right to believe so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Beliefs and “real world” doesn’t mean they are different. My belief is that murder is wrong and that doesn’t change in the real world

No, but your beliefs affact how you treat other humans, so they have effects beyound just being beliefs. That is the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, I see you running with your tail tucked between your legs. Still no substance and more hot air

That is backwards dude. Or perhaps dudette. You are the one that constantly runs away from supporting your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL… only in your imagination - but I support your right to believe so.

Instead of telling us that you believe your God does not exist would you care to learn how they are refuted?

 

[Kenny]

No, but your beliefs affact how you treat other humans, so they have effects beyound just being beliefs. That is the point.

Seems like we are splicing and dicing—is there something deeper here? (I jumped in late and may have missed the point)

 

[Kenny]

Instead of telling us that you believe your God does not exist would you care to learn how they are refuted?

Why would I want to put in effort when we both are entrenched in our positions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I want to put in effort when we both are entrenched in our positions?

You might learn something. But if you want to claim that by your standards that your God does not exist that is fine with me.