Man's Interpretation

[Astravalon]

My discussion here is to illuminate the fallacies of man tailoring God's word to their own liking. I'm not going to discuss the authenticity of the Bible itself, that's another thread. The Bible contains not the God's word, but also how to approach it. (e.g. Matthew 15:1-9 the scripture above tradition. Honoring one's parents is scripture, Corban was not.) RThe Bereans in Acts 17 examined the scripture to see if what Paul said was true. They compared the scriptures against waht Paul said. If what he said was written there, then it was true, if not then it was not true. When people put tradition over God's word, they are choosing to stray. Even in the case of having bad teachers, we have the option of doing what the Bereans did. The Israelites strayed often to idols. The message isn't so elusive. It's not an intellectual issue most of the time, but a heart issue. We are stubborn about doing things our own way, whatever that way may be. Jesus taught us to deny ourselves Mark 8 for a very good reason. Roman 10 teaches us to confess that Jesus is Lord for a very good reason.

I get where you're coming from on that.

However, even within Christianity everyone has their own take on what the correct approach to scripture is. One can have two very sincere Christians being very Berean about things and still come away with different ideas on them.

Then there's the catch-phrases, like "denying ourselves" for example. That means one thing to one Christian, and something entirely different to another. Which one is right? Well, naturally, the one who is right is whichever one agrees with the theology of whoever is asked that question.

Doesn't sound like 90%

Simply because my perception of God differs from yours doesn't mean that the bible didn't influence my perception of God. And I'm not quite sure what the long list of verses was supposed to prove with regards to that; that was kind of random, there.

Love doesn't, but you are, by suggesting we might not need salvation. We've all messed up and the only way back to God is through the forgiveness of sins he gives through Jesus Christ.

Again, there's the belief that "we've all messed up" and that "the only way back to God is through the forgiveness of sins He gives through Jesus Christ".

No one is good enough to be ok with God on their own.

As the Creator, God alone is responsible for how the product turns out. As the saying goes, with power comes responsibility, so if one is all powerful... well, you know where I'm going with that.

If the God we're talking about is Omnipotent -- which I believe He is -- He has at His disposal an infinite spectrum of alternatives for dealing with a flawed product which don't involve the rather barbaric solutions outlined in the Christian paradigm. And that is assuming that we somehow turned out in a way that He (in His Omniscient Foreknowledge, let's not forget), did not expect us to turn out.

I agree inasmuch that man tries to fashion God in his own own image, whatever that may be. People don't create hell/annihilation, God did. That's already in the Bible.

Actually, people created the belief in a God who created hell/annihilation.

But people sometimes do put more focus on things they prefer and leave out what they don't. Perfect example - Joel Olsteen admitted in an interview that he doesn't like to talk about sin. Some talk only of love, and some talk only of "hellfire and brimstone". It's all there though and should all be focused on.

It's there depending on one's preferred interpretation, I agree.

There's a saying, "I have read many books, but the bible reads me". People read into it what they want to. Some will give scholars credit for bringing them to their preferred conclusions, but at the end of the day and across the board, the bible will say what the individual wants it to say. If they want there to be a hell or annihilation, then by golly they'll see it in there.

But as with anything, a person's perception says more about them than it does about that which they're perceiving. "We see things not as they are, but as we are." In this regard, I see the bible more as a mirror; what one sees in it is themselves. Therefore, I'm quite relieved that I no longer see hell or annihilation in there, only love and redemption.

It sounds like you speak, not of unconditional love, but of unconditional salvation. -(assuming, of course, that salvation was ever really necessary to begin with).:sarcastic God loves those who will not be saved, but it's there choice.

If salvation is needed, why would God not save (i.e., restore) those He also loves?

In our disposable society, people think if something's broken we just throw it out rather than fix it. I guess this attitude as influenced soteriology as well.

Also, if Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 have anything to say about it, our salvation in Christ would no more be our choice than our death in Adam was.

Regarding the assurance factor -- when I was a Christian, there was always the nagging doubt that a Christian might have the wrong information, depending on which one of the hundreds of denominations he listened to.
When you had these doubts, did you go and check what the preacher said against the Bible or look up the scriptures he quoted? Not saying the preacher was write or wrong here, but am asking if you took the time to look it up ito see if it what the preacher said was written in the Bible.

Of course. I used to consider myself quite the "heresy hunter". However, the preacher got his teaching from the same bible I was using. See my comments above about how biblical interpretation has more to do with the mentality of the one interpreting it than it does about objective hermeneutics.

That's the sword that separates truth from fiction.

That only works until one realizes that the sword might be just as sharp on both sides of a theological discussion. Hence the hundreds of denominations, all of whom think their swordsmanship is all that and a bag of chips.

 

[e.r.m.]

Iridescence,

You're very good at expressing yourself. I respect and appreciate that. You give a lot of thought into what you say. I sense you don't typically speak out of a knee-jerk reaction.

I get where you're coming from on that.

However, even within Christianity everyone has their own take on what the correct approach to scripture is. One can have two very sincere Christians being very Berean about things and still come away with different ideas on them.
I maintain this stance. Getting away from-straying from the Bible is what causes division and splintering, not getting close to the Bible. Such as the Rev 3:20 example.


Then there's the catch-phrases, like "denying ourselves" for example. That means one thing to one Christian, and something entirely different to another. Which one is right? Well, naturally, the one who is right is whichever one agrees with the theology of whoever is asked that question.
Ahaha! I've seen the bias you speak of. I do understand why you say it. However, this is why I say that the original intent should be sought, instead of inserting our own private meaning. The authors' intent "is" the message we need to walk away with, again, such as with Rev. 3:20.



Simply because my perception of God differs from yours doesn't mean that the bible didn't influence my perception of God. And I'm not quite sure what the long list of verses was supposed to prove with regards to that; that was kind of random, there.
The scriptures were to address what you suggested. That there may be no need for salvation. Those scriptures say otherwise. Verses like

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
and
1 Peter 2:9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.


exemplify a before state and and after state. It doesn't leave room for "we we don't need salvation."
Jesus came to seek and save what was lost.


Again, there's the belief that "we've all messed up" and that "the only way back to God is through the forgiveness of sins He gives through Jesus Christ".
As the Creator, God alone is responsible for how the product turns out. As the saying goes, with power comes responsibility, so if one is all powerful... well, you know where I'm going with that.
If the God we're talking about is Omnipotent -- which I believe He is -- He has at His disposal an infinite spectrum of alternatives for dealing with a flawed product which don't involve the rather barbaric solutions outlined in the Christian paradigm. And that is assuming that we somehow turned out in a way that He (in His Omniscient Foreknowledge, let's not forget), did not expect us to turn out.
I've heard this one before, and I don't understand why people expect God to dispense all the power that He has to do. Jesus said Matthew 26:53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
For some reason people think only of God's power, but not of God's will. God does what He wills, not just what He's capable of. He wills to give us the choice.
That choice involves responsibility and consequences on our part.


Actually, people created the belief in a God who created hell/annihilation.
It's there depending on one's preferred interpretation, I agree. If they want there to be a hell or annihilation, then by golly they'll see it in there.
Only if one doubts the authenticity of the Bible. Hell annihilation is spoken about explicitly, not ambiguously in Hebrews 10:26-, as mentioned above.


There's a saying, "I have read many books, but the bible reads me". People read into it what they want to. Some will give scholars credit for bringing them to their preferred conclusions, but at the end of the day and across the board, the bible will say what the individual wants it to say. But as with anything, a person's perception says more about them than it does about that which they're perceiving. "We see things not as they are, but as we are." In this regard, I see the bible more as a mirror; what one sees in it is themselves.
This does happen. 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
The Bible says that doing this is wrong. People beat their wives in the name of God, but they're wrong too.


Therefore, I'm quite relieved that I no longer see hell or annihilation in there, only love and redemption.
This sounds like an argument I heard in High once about cursing. (I'm paraphrasing) The guy in said that different words mean different things in different languages, so saying "F' you" is ok, because in another language it's not a curse word. You're saying that because there's disagreement oiut there, that you're jsutified to take advantage of thatto throw out scriptures on hell or annihilation, You're not.


If salvation is needed, why would God not save (i.e., restore) those He also loves?
In our disposable society, people think if something's broken we just throw it out rather than fix it. I guess this attitude as influenced soteriology as well.
God gives us free will. God does not save people against their will.

Also, if Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 have anything to say about it, our salvation in Christ would no more be our choice than our death in Adam was.

Here's an example of context. 5 verses before 22 Paul says 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
Having faith is still not excluded from being saved.


Of course. I used to consider myself quite the "heresy hunter". However, the preacher got his teaching from the same bible I was using. See my comments above about how biblical interpretation has more to do with the mentality of the one interpreting it than it does about objective hermeneutics. That only works until one realizes that the sword might be just as sharp on both sides of a theological discussion. Hence the hundreds of denominations, all of whom think their swordsmanship is all that and a bag of chips.
Which is why I repeat that seeking the authors' original intent as in Rev. 3:20 trumps interpretation. A person who does this will be hounded by many who think they have "the message between the lines", as one who follows the Bible too closely. Those who stick to what's written are exceedingly less vulnerable to human error and proliferation of many denominations. It is not theory or wishful thinking. People make up teachings out of thin air a lot more than you give them credit for. Give it a try, go through a list of beliefs on any given doctrine, and compare the doctrine against what's actually written. I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you if you wish. (Fair warning, I have back issues and a lousy internet connection somethimes, I might sometimes be slow in getting back).


Take care.

 

[Astravalon]

You're very good at expressing yourself. I respect and appreciate that. You give a lot of thought into what you say. I sense you don't typically speak out of a knee-jerk reaction.

Thank you - I try to respond rather than react, though I'm not always successful, lol!

I maintain this stance. Getting away from-straying from the Bible is what causes division and splintering, not getting close to the Bible. Such as the Rev 3:20 example.

So it should be assumed that whoever maintains a stance which doesn't line up with yours, for example, is straying from the bible rather than getting close to it?

Ahaha! I've seen the bias you speak of. I do understand why you say it. However, this is why I say that the original intent should be sought, instead of inserting our own private meaning. The authors' intent "is" the message we need to walk away with, again, such as with Rev. 3:20.

I think that's a noble goal to strive for, but it should be remembered that even ideas of what the original intent was are going to vary among sincere believers. And this is understandable because not only do we not have ESP that we can read the intentions of the original scribes, but those scribes existed eons before we even came along, so the challenge is a double-whammy.

That's not to say that one can't learn from ancient holy texts, because they do contain wisdom. I think God can teach us through them, and the lessons might be different for different people, which is fine too, imo.

The scriptures were to address what you suggested. That there may be no need for salvation. Those scriptures say otherwise. Verses like

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Ephesians 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
and
1 Peter 2:9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
exemplify a before state and and after state. It doesn't leave room for "we we don't need salvation."
Jesus came to seek and save what was lost.

Yes, all according to Christianity. If we do need saving, though, I'm confident that God will accomplish it 100%.

For some reason people think only of God's power, but not of God's will. God does what He wills, not just what He's capable of. He wills to give us the choice.
That choice involves responsibility and consequences on our part.

Speaking of which, the bible says that God will have all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and also that all His will shall be done (Isaiah 46:10). What do you suppose is the logical outcome of those two factors?

Only if one doubts the authenticity of the Bible. Hell annihilation is spoken about explicitly, not ambiguously in Hebrews 10:26-, as mentioned above.

One can believe in the authenticity of the bible and still come to a different conclusion. I know of a boatload of verses which suggest very strongly that a happy ending awaits all mankind.

This does happen. 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

The Bible says that doing this is wrong. People beat their wives in the name of God, but they're wrong too.

Exactly. I'm sure everyone's ears are itching to hear something, and they will prefer teachers who align with their preferred beliefs. This also goes for those who consider themselves Real Christians™; I doubt anyone honestly espouses a belief system they don't want to, or that doesn't appeal to their itching ears on some level.

This sounds like an argument I heard in High once about cursing. (I'm paraphrasing) The guy in said that different words mean different things in different languages, so saying "F' you" is ok, because in another language it's not a curse word. You're saying that because there's disagreement oiut there, that you're jsutified to take advantage of thatto throw out scriptures on hell or annihilation, You're not.

I'm not quite getting the connection between my confidence in God's salvific success and that analogy.

Here's an example of context. 5 verses before 22 Paul says 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
Having faith is still not excluded from being saved.

I was thinking more along the lines of the parallel the verses make between our death in Adam and our deliverance in Christ:

Romans 5:14:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”
​

And Romans 5:18-19:

"18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
​

Which is very similar to 1 Corinthians 15:22:

"22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
​

Adam is presented here as a pattern of the one to come (Jesus). I take that to mean that Adam’s impact on mankind would be equaled by Christ’s impact on mankind. For me to conclude otherwise would be for me to say that Adam was more successful at wrecking mankind than Jesus is at reconciling it, and I'm just not going to do that.

 

[e.r.m.]

Thank you - I try to respond rather than react, though I'm not always successful, lol!

So it should be assumed that whoever maintains a stance which doesn't line up with yours, for example, is straying from the bible rather than getting close to it?

I think that's a noble goal to strive for, but it should be remembered that even ideas of what the original intent was are going to vary among sincere believers. And this is understandable because not only do we not have ESP that we can read the intentions of the original scribes, but those scribes existed eons before we even came along, so the challenge is a double-whammy.

That's not to say that one can't learn from ancient holy texts, because they do contain wisdom. I think God can teach us through them, and the lessons might be different for different people, which is fine too, imo.

Yes, all according to Christianity. If we do need saving, though, I'm confident that God will accomplish it 100%.

Speaking of which, the bible says that God will have all mankind to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) and also that all His will shall be done (Isaiah 46:10). What do you suppose is the logical outcome of those two factors?

One can believe in the authenticity of the bible and still come to a different conclusion. I know of a boatload of verses which suggest very strongly that a happy ending awaits all mankind.

Exactly. I'm sure everyone's ears are itching to hear something, and they will prefer teachers who align with their preferred beliefs. This also goes for those who consider themselves Real Christians™; I doubt anyone honestly espouses a belief system they don't want to, or that doesn't appeal to their itching ears on some level.

I'm not quite getting the connection between my confidence in God's salvific success and that analogy.

I was thinking more along the lines of the parallel the verses make between our death in Adam and our deliverance in Christ:

Romans 5:14:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.”
​

And Romans 5:18-19:

"18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
​

Which is very similar to 1 Corinthians 15:22:

"22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
​

Adam is presented here as a pattern of the one to come (Jesus). I take that to mean that Adam’s impact on mankind would be equaled by Christ’s impact on mankind. For me to conclude otherwise would be for me to say that Adam was more successful at wrecking mankind than Jesus is at reconciling it, and I'm just not going to do that.

Thank you - I try to respond rather than react, though I'm not always successful, lol!
I understand, I'm not always successful either, lol.


So it should be assumed that whoever maintains a stance which doesn't line up with yours, for example, is straying from the bible rather than getting close to it?
No, the standard is what is actually written, such as in Rev. 3:20. When you pay attention to how many doctrines people add to the text, it's amazing.


I think that's a noble goal to strive for, but it should be remembered that even ideas of what the original intent was are going to vary among sincere believers.
I agree, but I think more of it comes from being accustomed to what people grow up with. Some of it comes from laziness, just taking other people's word for it, instead of being like a Berean and examining to see if what people tell them is true. I'm going to use a non-biblical example. I've asked a number of people if they think the saying is true that we use only 10% of our brains. Most people have answered either, "yes" or something like "different people may use different percentages".
FEW HAD BOTHERED to actually look it up. There is no shred of evidence that humans use so little of their brain. MRI have shown conclusively that everyone uses 100% of their brain. We'd be dead without it.
Anyway, sincere people do the same with the Bible. Often, people form their initial beliefs by just taking the view of the person in charge (pastor, teacher, etc), and either investigate it no more, or from that point on look up scriptures only to defend that position. Altar calls are notoriously heavy on emotion and anemic on teaching scripture. Many "christians" out there don't open their Bibles and their churches don't expect them to.
Amongst those who do study their Bibles, I have found a good number that add to the Bible. For example, on this forum, one guy insisted that being baptized with fire meant a grand spiritual change within a person. I asked him a bunch of times to show me one written reference in the Bible to support that definition of baptism with fire. He never did, saying it doesn't have have to be written. He invented his own definition.

When you wittle it down there's not as much variation to the actual text as you might think.

And this is understandable because not only do we not have ESP that we can read the intentions of the original scribes, but those scribes existed eons before we even came along, so the challenge is a double-whammy.

That's not to say that one can't learn from ancient holy texts, because they do contain wisdom. I think God can teach us through them, and the lessons might be different for different people, which is fine too, imo.
Thank you for sharing. As well, it's not as difficult as you might think. Another example, other than Rev. 3:20, is 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Many sincere people believe this is a scripture telling people "how to get saved" until you show them who John was addressing: 1 John 3:How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
I showed a "leader" of a campus ministry at FIU the original intent of John, in John's own words, when the "leader" quoted me 1 John 1:9. This leader looked embarrassed and told me, "I'll have to go look it up", and he never spoke to me again. He obviously never had looked it up before. Someone had just passed it along to him and he passed it along to others. This sort of thing is rampant, even among leaders.
The point is that people are trained to interpret and interpret only. People are not taught to seek original intent. Many have never tried. Therefore, when people are presented with the idea, they may think it's insurmountable. When people are accustomed to seeking the original intent they see how feasible and reliable it is. It provides a way of scrutinizing scripture from extra-biblical tradition.
Most of the meaning is in the actual writing, people don't know how many extra ideas they subconciously import from other sources. One more example. Mary Magdelene is said to have committed some sort of sexual sin, prostitution, adultery, etc. The Bible never says Mary Magdelene did any such thing. I love to use this in Bible Trivia games. "In which of the 4 gospels did Mary Magdelene committ a sexual sin?" Hahaha!


Agreed that lessons garnered may apply in different areas of life to different people. Love your enemies to one person may apply to an eggregiously abusive family member with no conscience, to another it may apply to loving a bad co-worker who has no scruples. But the original lesson is the same.

Will address the other half soon. Gotta go.
Take care.

 

[e.r.m.]

Iridescence,

Part 2
I took time and considered what you said. You used scripture logically (good).
Here's my question, How do you reconcile the pair Isaiah 46:10 and 1 Timothy 2:4 with
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

I can use many other scriptures to demonstrate that not everyone will make it. This one will do.

How do you reconcile the co-existence of these verses in the scriptures.

I see this scripture as the reason

Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

God draws his own line at our wilingness. There are other scriptures as well that address the willingness issue, but this one will do for now

Romans 5:14
This scripture says that sin entered "the world" through Adam and death through sin.
It also says death came to all men BECAUSE all men sinned. Adam introduced sin into the world. Because we all sinned, we wrecked ourselves.

 

[jtartar]

An imminent NT scholar once said, "The bible has not lasted because it is true. The bible has lasted because it fosters multiple interpretations."

There are any number of different, valid ways to understand God.

sojourner,
You are absolutely right that the Bible has been interpreted in many ways, but only ONE WAY is acceptable, Eph 4:3-6. The Bible is actually UNIVOCAL, it tells ONE TRUTH. Men and their philosophies have come up with a myriad of beliefs.
Jesus said that the scriptures can be understood by BABES, Luke 10:21, but not by the wise and intellectual.
The Bible gives several reasons why the truth is not know to the many. No wicked will understan, Dan 12:10. The untrained HEART leads people away from truth, sometimes they are wilfully blind. According to Jesus it is the HEART that keeps people from seeing the truth, Matt 13:13-16.
Another reason for not understanding truth of God's word is being too lazy to search His Holy Word, Prov 2:2-9.
Another is the lack of praying for Holy Spirit to help anyone understand, 1Cor 2:6-15.

 

[Astravalon]

I agree, but I think more of it comes from being accustomed to what people grow up with. Some of it comes from laziness, just taking other people's word for it, instead of being like a Berean and examining to see if what people tell them is true.

How about when you reach a point where you're so Berean that even the Bereans get annoyed? That's what happened with me and the whole endless hell teaching; people just accept that not everyone will be saved, not looking deeper to see that perhaps Good News is even better than originally believed.

Amongst those who do study their Bibles, I have found a good number that add to the Bible. For example, on this forum, one guy insisted that being baptized with fire meant a grand spiritual change within a person. I asked him a bunch of times to show me one written reference in the Bible to support that definition of baptism with fire. He never did, saying it doesn't have have to be written. He invented his own definition.

In the universal salvation paradigm, baptism by fire could refer to the purification that comes via being in the Lake of Fire, what with the brimstone being a purifying ingredient, etc.

When you wittle it down there's not as much variation to the actual text as you might think.

The point is that people are trained to interpret and interpret only. People are not taught to seek original intent. Many have never tried. Therefore, when people are presented with the idea, they may think it's insurmountable. When people are accustomed to seeking the original intent they see how feasible and reliable it is. It provides a way of scrutinizing scripture from extra-biblical tradition.

The thing about original intent and context is that in it's strictest application, it's quite probable none of the bible even applies to us today.

For example, God told Eve she would experience pain in childbearing. Many take that to mean that all mothers will experience pain during labor. But now we have epidurals for that, so not everyone experiences pain in childbirth. Therefore, God's proclamation likely just referred to Eve specifically (original intent/context), otherwise God would have been either lying or mistaken if He were speaking a prophecy meant to apply to all mothers for all time. Another is "go forth and multiply". Many Christians take that to mean that they absolutely must have kids. But if that were a blanket command for all people, God wouldn't create anyone unable to conceive and have children. So obviously God doesn't intend for everyone to reproduce.

I took time and considered what you said. You used scripture logically (good).
Here's my question, How do you reconcile the pair Isaiah 46:10 and 1 Timothy 2:4 with
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

There are a couple ways of looking at it:

From the standpoint of Proverbs 16:9 and a host of similar verses, God's will is being done already through everyone, so in that sense everyone qualifies.

From a different standpoint that permits human will a freer range of motion, ultimately everyone will be doing His will, each in his own turn. If God 'will have all be saved', then, sooner or later, everyone will be doing the will of the Father in heaven.

I can use many other scriptures to demonstrate that not everyone will make it. This one will do.

How do you reconcile the co-existence of these verses in the scriptures.

I see this scripture as the reason

Matthew 23:37
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

God draws his own line at our wilingness. There are other scriptures as well that address the willingness issue, but this one will do for now

I believe Scripture contains it's share of contradictions, which is why I don't lean too heavily on it or any other religious text.

Because I approach the concept of God from "God is Love" (1 John 4:16 and 1 John 4:8), as well as Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent, such concepts as Him consigning or losing souls to endless torment or annihilation just doesn't make sense. Any verses which present a concept of God that makes Him no better than any human would be in managing the ultimate well-being of His own creation are the ones that I personally take with a huge grain of salt.

Romans 5:14
This scripture says that sin entered "the world" through Adam and death through sin.
It also says death came to all men BECAUSE all men sinned. Adam introduced sin into the world. Because we all sinned, we wrecked ourselves.

Still, we are a product of God. Usually when a product malfunctions in some way, the manufacturer is responsible. Not that it's God's 'fault', just His design, and why I believe that He's not going to punish or annihilate forever people for behaving precisely the way He designed them to.

 

[e.r.m.]

Iridescence,

How about when you reach a point where you're so Berean that even the Bereans get annoyed?
Then that's not Berean, lol. And again, it's not as hard as your making it sound. The problem is that people have been misled to interpret for so long, they're not used to this.

That's what happened with me and the whole endless hell teaching; people just accept that not everyone will be saved, not looking deeper to see that perhaps Good News is even better than originally believed.
In the analogy, that was not clear I meant that one could use the confusion of others, as an excuse to just make up their own god. e.g. - "No one out there really understands, so I'm in no worse shape than they are if I just believe what I like to believe."
This what I call the "What about him?!" defense. Jesus never accepted the "What about him?!" defense. John 21:21-22, Mathew 20:11-14.

In the universal salvation paradigm, baptism by fire could refer to the purification that comes via being in the Lake of Fire, what with the brimstone being a purifying ingredient, etc.
No it could not. It doesn't "say" ANYWHERE in the Bible that the lake of fire is a purification, unless you know where it's "written".

Those who overcome will be given from the spring of the water of life.
Revelation 21:6 Then He said to me, “[c]It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. 7 He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.

Those who don't will partake of the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 But for the cowardly and [d]unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and [e]brimstone, which is the second death.”

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose [g]presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and [h]books were opened; and another [i]book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the [j]books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if [k]anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

There's no reference of anyone being redeemed after being thrown in the lake.


The thing about original intent and context is that in it's strictest application, it's quite probable none of the bible even applies to us today.
For example, God told Eve she would experience pain in childbearing.
Many take that to mean that all mothers will experience pain during labor. But now we have epidurals for that, so not everyone experiences pain in childbirth. Therefore, God's proclamation likely just referred to Eve specifically (original intent/context), otherwise God would have been either lying or mistaken if He were speaking a prophecy meant to apply to all mothers for all time.
Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain [e]in childbirth,
You're right. God didn't say all women. He therefore may not have meant all women.
Yet I question your logic. Epidurals exist because of the pain.



Another is "go forth and multiply". Many Christians take that to mean that they absolutely must have kids. But if that were a blanket command for all people, God wouldn't create anyone unable to conceive and have children. So obviously God doesn't intend for everyone to reproduce.
Right again - Original intent.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [a]sky and over every living thing that [b]moves on the earth.”
Once we filled and subdued the earth and ruled over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [a]sky and over every living thing that [b]moves on the earth, then that command was fulfilled. That command did not require for every woman to bear children. People who insist that this is a blanket command for all are adding to what was written.

 

[e.r.m.]

Iridescence,

Part 2

There are a couple ways of looking at it:
From the standpoint of Proverbs 16:9 and a host of similar verses, God's will is being done already through everyone, so in that sense everyone qualifies.
Context:
Proverbs 16:1 The plans of the heart belong to man,
But the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.
Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way,
But the Lord directs his steps.
Doesn't say the Lord forces his steps, he directs.
God tells us, You planned to go that way, but I want you to go this way. There are consequences if you go your own way.

Just like what happened with Jonah.

From a different standpoint that permits human will a freer range of motion, ultimately everyone will be doing His will, each in his own turn. If God 'will have all be saved', then, sooner or later, everyone will be doing the will of the Father in heaven.
You're talking like how Paul described
Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

Everyone incidentally or unwittingly doing God's will, contradicts the written scripture that people must deny ourselves in order to save their souls. It doesn't happended naturally, much less without us knowing.
Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

I believe Scripture contains it's share of contradictions, which is why I don't lean too heavily on it or any other religious text.
Because I approach the concept of God from "God is Love" (1 John 4:16 and 1 John 4:8), as well as Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent,
The "written" passage gives it's own context. It doesn't give the context you provided.
1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son[b] into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. 17 In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

The same John who wrote the above (Rev. 1:1) , ALSO wrote
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (1 John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar...)

such concepts as Him consigning or losing souls to endless torment or annihilation just doesn't make sense.
You are cherry picking the scriptures you like, isolating them, and then building Iridescence's theology around them, in spite of the surrounding scriptures in which you found them. You even accept some of what John wrote and reject other parts of what John wrote. Your view is that tunnel-visioned.

Any verses which present a concept of God that makes Him no better than any human would be in managing the ultimate well-being of His own creation are the ones that I personally take with a huge grain of salt.
Ditto above. You accept scriptures so long as they conform to your pre-determined image of God. God does not conform to you. You're making your god instead of getting to know God. Acts 17:29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge [u]the world in righteousness [v]through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men [w]by raising Him from the dead.”

Still, we are a product of God. Usually when a product malfunctions in some way, the manufacturer is responsible.
Not that it's God's 'fault', just His design, and why I believe that He's not going to punish or annihilate forever people for behaving precisely the way He designed them to.
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel [l]for honorable use and another [m]for common use? 22 [n]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

There is your god and then there is the God of the Bible, I put my money on the God of the Bible.
The difficulty isn't that the Bible isn't clear, the difficulty is that it's hard to live by, because as humans we want to do what we want to do and we want to believe what we want to believe. It's no different than the Israelites and their idols.

 

[Astravalon]

Then that's not Berean, lol. And again, it's not as hard as your making it sound. The problem is that people have been misled to interpret for so long, they're not used to this.

The reality is that Christians of all different stripes would tell you they're being very Berean about their beliefs. No one really is an authority on who is truly Berean and who isn't. It's all subjective.

In the analogy, that was not clear I meant that one could use the confusion of others, as an excuse to just make up their own god. e.g. - "No one out there really understands, so I'm in no worse shape than they are if I just believe what I like to believe."

I seriously doubt anyone believes anything they wouldn't like to believe.

No it could not. It doesn't "say" ANYWHERE in the Bible that the lake of fire is a purification, unless you know where it's "written".

Are you familiar with the uses of brimstone?

It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that one needs the bible to support one's beliefs, either.

There's no reference of anyone being redeemed after being thrown in the lake.

There's no reference of anyone being tortured endlessly or being annihilated either.

Also, since death is the last enemy to be destroyed, it will be eliminated and therefore release its hold on those who undergo it -- whether it's the 1st death, the 2nd death, or the 49th death.

You're right. God didn't say all women. He therefore may not have meant all women. Yet I question your logic. Epidurals exist because of the pain.

A pain unexperienced is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The epidural is amazing stuff!

Doesn't say the Lord forces his steps, he directs.
God tells us, You planned to go that way, but I want you to go this way. There are consequences if you go your own way.
Just like what happened with Jonah.

The end result is the same. God's will rules the day.

You're talking like how Paul described...<snipped due to space constraints>... Everyone incidentally or unwittingly doing God's will, contradicts the written scripture that people must deny ourselves in order to save their souls. It doesn't happended naturally, much less without us knowing.
Mark 8:34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with everyone ultimately doing God's will. Ya lost me there. What part of God 'will have all be saved' is the problem? Christians seem to have the hardest time with "Not my will but Yours be done". It's ironic to say the least.

The "written" passage gives it's own context. It doesn't give the context you provided....<snipped due to space constraints>... The same John who wrote the above (Rev. 1:1) , ALSO wroteRevelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (1 John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar...)

How does any of this negate my claim that God is Love as well as Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent?

You are cherry picking the scriptures you like, isolating them, and then building Iridescence's theology around them, in spite of the surrounding scriptures in which you found them. You even accept some of what John wrote and reject other parts of what John wrote. Your view is that tunnel-visioned.

Ditto above. You accept scriptures so long as they conform to your pre-determined image of God. God does not conform to you. You're making your god instead of getting to know God.

People in these sorts of discussions usually resort to accusations of "cherry picking" when verses are presented to them which conflict with their preferred paradigm. You also seem to be getting a tad defensive and making assumptions for which you have no actual support about someone you've never even met. These are typical reactions I get from Christians when I share the implications of God's power coupled with His love. At times, the more I glorify Him over their theology, the more peevish they become.

Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel [l]for honorable use and another [m]for common use? 22 [n]What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

That verse always struck me as Paul feeling indignant because he couldn't face the obvious answer to that question, which is, as I said before, that God is ultimately responsible for the performance of His own product. No, that phrase isn't written in there, but you see, I'm not bound by the words found in some ancient text. Some look to the scriptures because they think that in them they have life ... and they seem to just stop there; anything beyond those scriptures is public enemy #1 as far as they're concerned.

There is your god and then there is the God of the Bible, I put my money on the God of the Bible.
The difficulty isn't that the Bible isn't clear, the difficulty is that it's hard to live by, because as humans we want to do what we want to do and we want to believe what we want to believe. It's no different than the Israelites and their idols.

This seems to be the general sentiment of institutionalized religion when faced with views that conflict with it's own indoctrinations. As for idolatry, I repented of bibliolatry awhile ago; I no longer worship a book.