The Christian Downfall ---The Error Of Balaam

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
unsafe said:
Hi revsdd your Quote ---- What is it that you want me to prove,----you prove to me that Cain's error was not because he didn't bring the right product to worship God and that he brought the fruit in Faith ---


Understand this---- God had cursed the ground after Adam screwed up ---Why would God accept an offering from what He cursed -----and God is omnipresent and He would have already known Cain's heart and where he stood with God in --attitude ---respect and obedience.
Click to expand...

Those are excellent questions, unsafe - and you are using those Scriptures to INTERPRET another Scripture to make sure that it says what it doesn't explicitly say. That's what I want you to acknowledge. You're reading beyond or behind the specific words of the Bible.

You're expending a lot of energy trying to convince me that you're right when, if you check the thread, I haven't once really disagreed with you. I think you have a very plausible interpretation (weakened somewhat by the fact that God later accepts sacrifices from the cursed ground.) What I want you to admit is that it's an INTERPRETATION and that nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly say that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it was not a blood sacrifice or that Cain was without faith. You have to infer that from other texts, which is a form of interpretation. That's all I'm asking you to say. So, let me make it easier, by putting it as a simple question:

Is there a text in the Bible that explicitly says either that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it was not a blood sacrifice or that Cain had no faith? I don't want anything more than "yes" or "no." Any response other than "yes" or "no" is you avoiding the issue and presumably not being willing to admit that your position is an interpretation of the text.
 
popcorn.jpg
 
revsdd ---- your quote ------
and you are using those Scriptures to INTERPRET another Scripture to make sure that it says what it doesn't explicitly say. .

Big COP OUT revsdd -----if you have a problem with God's word that you will have to speak with God about that ---not me ---I didn't write the scripture God did ------I believe God word and it says what it says ---- you prove it wrong -----the scripture is very clear in what it says -----not rocket science ------

Peace to you and have a great weekend
 
Anything that the amplified Bible adds to Scripture is not Scripture but commentary or interpretation. It cannot be used to prove what the 'Bible says'.
 
No cop out at all on my part. But you can't give me a "yes" or "no" answer. Again - is there a specific biblical quote you can offer that says that Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because it was not a blood sacrifice. Or a specific biblical quote that says that Cain had no faith. If you won't answer "yes" or "no" then I'm afraid it's you who's copping out. So come on. You're good at quoting Scripture. Give me the specific quote to support what you're saying or admit that your position goes beyond the witness of Scripture and is your interpretation. A very plausible interpretation as I said, but still an interpretation unless you can back up your position with a quote from the Bible that specifically says what you're saying. So, yeah. It's you who needs to stop copping out.
 
revsdd ----Your Quote ----- So, yeah. It's you who needs to stop copping out.

Seems like I hit another nerve -----Done going round the mountain -----you prove the scripture wrong now ----

Peace
 
Hi seeler -----This Bible is no different than another other Bible ---- read more here ---- http://www.lockman.org/amplified/index.php

Amplified Bible
Overview

TheAmplifiedBible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice. It is a translation from the accepted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts into literary English. It is based on theAmerican Standard Versionof 1901, Rudolph Kittel’sBiblia Hebraica, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and the 23rd edition of theNestle Greek New Testamentas well as the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons available at the time. Cognate languages, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Greek works were also consulted. The Septuagint and other versions were compared for interpretation of textual differences. In completing theAmplifiedBible, translators made a determined effort to keep, as far as possible, the familiar wording of the earlier versions, and especially the feeling of the ancient Book.

Through amplification, the reader gains a better understanding of what the Hebrew and Greek listener instinctively understood(as a matter of course). Take, for example, the Greek wordpisteuo, which the vast majority of versions render as "believe." That simple translation, however, hardly does justice to the many meanings contained in the Greekpisteuo: "to adhere to, cleave to; to trust to have faith in; to rely on, to depend on." Notice the subtle shades of meaning which are unlocked in John 11:25:


History of the King James Version

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.---

read more here --http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html
  1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
  2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
  3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the wordchurch,not to be translatedcongregation.
  4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
 
unsafe said:
I believe God word and it says what it says
Click to expand...

Except you also believe that Cain had no faith and scripture does not say that.

You also believe that Abel's sacrifice was accepted because it was a blood sacrifice and the scripture does not say that either.

Steven has asked you to show where the scriptures do teach that Cain was without faith and where the scriptures do teach that Abel's sacrifice was accepted because it was a blood sacrifice.

You also believe that there was teaching about proper sacrifices so that Cain and Abel would know what to bring. Scripture teaches nothing of the sort.

So these three beliefs are your beliefs and they are not beliefs supported by scripture.

It isn't a matter of us proving scripture wrong, since no scripture exists to support your position.

It is a matter of you proving scripture says what you believe it to say.

We are still waiting on that.
 
unsafe said:
revsdd ----Your Quote ----- So, yeah. It's you who needs to stop copping out.

Seems like I hit another nerve -----Done going round the mountain -----you prove the scripture wrong now ----

Peace
Click to expand...

Unsafe, all I'm asking for is a direct biblical quote that explicitly supports your position. You're the one who keeps going round and round the circle, unwilling to admit that there's no direct scriptural support for your position, and then trying to call someone else (in this case me) into question in a rather pathetic attempt to distract others from the error of your position. It's actually unnerving to see the complete unwillingness on your part to admit the simple fact that you've made an interpretation of Scripture that has no direct textual support. So, you say you believe and trust God's word. So do I. But you're the one claiming that Scripture says something that it doesn't say. I'm pointing out the error of that claim. But you say that you love God's word, and that I have a problem with it? You clearly can't provide a direct quote from the Bible to back up your position. But you also refuse to admit that. Once again, your arrogance on this point is evidence of a significant spiritual issue, which I submit makes you both unsafe and unfit as someone who seeks to share the Word of God.
 
Unsafe, setting aside that I would never try to prove Scripture wrong (although I will seek to interpret it, as you are clearly doing in spite of the fact that you won't admit it) I have no idea what "Scripture" you're suggesting that I think is wrong because you have yet to offer me a biblical verse that explicitly supports your claims about Cain's sacrifice and Cain's faith (and, for that matter, as revjohn points out, the suggestion that God had given instructions about sacrifice before this incident.) So stop deflecting and avoiding the issue and show me the Scripture. Oh. Wait. I know. You can't. Because you don't have one. So you're desperately trying to take the focus off your claim that such Scripture exists by asking me to disprove a non-existent scripture. The simple fact is that the Bible doesn't explicitly say what you're claiming it says. On this, at least, you are deliberately perpetuating a lie because you're too proud and arrogant to admit that you're in error. In other words, on this issue at least, you are a false teacher.
 
For all who are intrested ---great Video on Cain and Abel looking throught Spiritual Glasses ---explains it well ----real meaning behind the word ----- Sin and the Blood ----God had a plan -----



Genesis Session 10 Ch 4 5 Cain And Abel
 
A video? "Through spiritual glasses?" An unscriptural and meaningless term, unless you're Joseph Smith. It means - his interpretation. I'm still waiting for the SCRIPTURE that says what you claim; not for someone's interpretation.

Sorry to everyone who reads this constant back and forth and is getting tired of it, but unsafe is being too obvious. She wants to deflect attention off the erroneous claim she's made but won't admit to. Every time she posts here, I'm gonna bring her back to the real question - where's the Scripture that says the thing that she claims Scripture says. What Scripture says that Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because it was not a blood sacrifice? What Scripture says that Cain was without faith? What Scripture says that there were rules for sacrifices before this incident?

The Scripture unsafe. Give me the Scripture. Not a video, not a commentary, not a sermon. Give me the Scripture.
 
Hi Rev John--Part of your post---

airclean33 said:
Why as GODS word don't say for sure?
Click to expand...

God does not directly address the reason why Cain's offering is rejected. The text of the narrative does. The same narrative which tells us that God regarded Abel's offering and disregarded Cain's is the one which tells us that Cain only brought some and Abel brought the fat of his firstlings.

For the record, the narrative of scripture talks about the "fat of the land" when referring to the first fruits of the harvest.

Cain did not bring the first fruits he brought some.

That fat and first would be applied to Abel's offering does not mean it is animal offerings that God wants (since there had been no command or even suggestion for sacrifices at this point in the narrative) it means that God regards the best as suitable sacrifice. The fact that the narrative does not include fat or first in describing Cain's sacrifice is actually very telling.
__________________________________________________

Airclean--As I said at the top of the post. I read it that GOD dose not say His reason. That you believe as you do is ok with me as it's how you see it. Myself the rest of The Bible God wrote ,seems more to answer to the Blood as it is By The Blood of Christ, that we are save. Not" by the( crop of the Ground).That we all are condemed by. God Bless---airclean33
 
If i can put my 2 cents worth,,,,


The fat of the land is another way of saying the first good abundance of the produce of the land , In Italian terms, we still use this praise today.


If you look a scripture God Gives His best first to man, His Son, man in return Gives his first and best to God, first fruits of our income, first day of the week for worship, 1st commandment Love you God, Abraham first and best sacrifice and so on.

so it wasn't so much as to kind of offering was being brought to God but the intent of Cane and Abel's heart , Able put God first bring to God his very best, were as Cane put himself first and gave God left overs .
 
Last edited:
unsafe said:
Hi seeler -----This Bible is no different than another other Bible ---- read more here ---- http://www.lockman.org/amplified/index.php

Amplified Bible
Overview

TheAmplifiedBible is free of personal interpretation and is independent of denominational prejudice. It is a translation from the accepted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts into literary English. It is based on theAmerican Standard Versionof 1901, Rudolph Kittel’sBiblia Hebraica, the Greek text of Westcott and Hort, and the 23rd edition of theNestle Greek New Testamentas well as the best Hebrew and Greek lexicons available at the time. Cognate languages, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other Greek works were also consulted. The Septuagint and other versions were compared for interpretation of textual differences. In completing theAmplifiedBible, translators made a determined effort to keep, as far as possible, the familiar wording of the earlier versions, and especially the feeling of the ancient Book.

Through amplification, the reader gains a better understanding of what the Hebrew and Greek listener instinctively understood(as a matter of course). Take, for example, the Greek wordpisteuo, which the vast majority of versions render as "believe." That simple translation, however, hardly does justice to the many meanings contained in the Greekpisteuo: "to adhere to, cleave to; to trust to have faith in; to rely on, to depend on." Notice the subtle shades of meaning which are unlocked in John 11:25:
Click to expand...

Since translation without interpretation is impossible. this statement is obviously self-serving hogwash. Because where there are many possible translations to choose one is interpretation, even if one lists all the possible options choosing which one goes first (which makes it look "best") is interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top