So why do people fall for people like Ernie Knoll

[jasd]

>>There are so many places in the Word that flatout state that we may know something, it seems inane to think that no one is able to tell for sure what God is trying to get across to human kind, especially since God has the ability to create, to think He then is unable to find a way to communicate with those who place Him first in their lives, is unreasonable to assume.<<

Prov 25:2 [it is] the glory of God to conceal a thing:

Mebbe, for this reason there are more than 30,000 Protesting .orgs and some 700 schismatic groups within the RCC church.

For too long and too often .orgs have tended to follow their predispositions – and re the very words of Gd – have rejected them. I speak directly to such as the words of Gd (Dan 12:4) which proscribed the wresting of the book of Daniel until the time of the end.

>>If we cannot be sure we can "know" anything for sure that an all-wise God is trying to tell us, we live in constant probability of falling for one of the enemy of soul's lies intimated in a demand, assuming that God might not be Who He says He is.<<

I think that I recall some one or another posting EGW as saying that Biblical truths would be ever-unfolding. Yet, the .Org clings desperately to shibboleths. Change seems anathema to it.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Babylon, the Church of the Antichrist – which has accomplished far more – even considering the time element.

I'm so grateful Jesus has given us a measure of time each week, wherein we can lay aside our predispositions and rather use the time for more expeditious feeding of those who hunger for the Bread of life, without feeling a need to be right with the world in general.

Here's hoping, that Sabbath that was made for man will prove to be the best hours of your week.

Hope you all, each and everyone, have a

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:2 NASB

God blesses!

[JoeMo]

Thanks, LHC - Same to you!

Blessings, JoeMo

[phkrause]

Hope you all, each and everyone, have a

back at ya LHC

[NJK Project]

There are so many places in the Word that flatout state that we may know something, it seems inane to think that no one is able to tell for sure what God is trying to get across to human kind, especially since God has the ability to create, to think He then is unable to find a way to communicate with those who place Him first in their lives, is unreasonable to assume.

[NJK Project]

>>John 11:25 of course is saying ‘though some may die, they will later on live’ and then

John 11:26 says, as it was exegetically pointed out here: ‘will not die forever’. For some strange reason “forever” was left untranslated in many Bible versions.<<

[NJK Project]

Quote:

Babylon, the Church of the Antichrist – which has accomplished far more – even considering the time element.

I'm so grateful Jesus has given us a measure of time each week, wherein we can lay aside our predispositions and rather use the time for more expeditious feeding of those who hunger for the Bread of life, without feeling a need to be right with the world in general.

Here's hoping, that Sabbath that was made for man will prove to be the best hours of your week.

Hope you all, each and everyone, have a

"If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:2 NASB

God blesses!

Ahhhh.. but God’s set out His ideal purpose for His Sabbath in Isa 58....and it prominently includes working to also help those in (vital) physical need, as Jesus did (John 5:15-17).

That is what is true/actual love (1 John 3:16-19; James 2:15-17; Matt 22:37-40).

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:NJK

For some strange reason “forever” was left untranslated in many Bible versions.

I think you’re referring to eis aion, yes?

“There is a distinct difference between forever and for ever. The first word is an adverb, meaning continuously or persistently – ‘he is forever losing his wallet, ‘she is forever complaining’. As two words, ‘for ever’ is an expression meaning for all future time, …”

"shall not never die for all future time". Okay, certainly tracks the text.

On the other hand I seem to recall one translation rendering the text “shall never die, ever”. That ought satisfy any pique incurred by the dismissal of eis aion.

>>(jasd, it would be much easier to follow who is saying what in your quoting response if you use the UBB quote coding which is: [*quote=(username)]your quoting

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

The phrase in John 11:26 transliterated reads: “ou me (not never) eis (preposition governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among,) aion (1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age) apothn&#275;sk&#333; (die).

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Almost the entirety of our Bible Translations translate the passage “shall never die”, which, though not a literal transliteration – is nonetheless – a correct translation, as the denotation of eis is already incorporated into the phrase “shall never die” – for eis, as used here, is a delimiting term.

>>Those added/subsequent claims of yours are exegetical fallacies. (Sounds/Seems like “voodoo” exegesis to me.<<

When the preposition eis is used before aion, the phrase is most often translated “for ever” – and when aion is without the preposition eis – it is translated “age”. Then there are the variable exceptions. Now, I ask,

does that not describe the determinative nature of the term?

My response may be a bit oblique and it may be that I could have provided more clarity; however, I am without a Bible program. Alas![/sigh]

>>You’ll need to quote or cite some Greek Grammars/Syntax works which support such claims, if any).<<

Don’t know whether the issue is so much Greek Grammars/Syntax as it is – what contextually translates best.

Ever read translated Japanese Haiku? All languages lose something in their translation. In this case “for ever” has been dismissed as inconsequential by almost the entirety of a catalog of major translations.

[jasd]

Note: the number of times Saint John records the phrase eis aion or a variation thereof…

Jn 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; (eis aion ou me)

Jn 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. (ou me eis aion)

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (ou me eis aion)

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (ou me eis aion)

Jn 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. (eis aion ou me)

1 Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (meno eis aion)

I think you’ll find the definition of “abideth” quite singular and reprises John 11:26; however, I especially like the Weymouth New Testament’s translation…

1 Jn 2:17 And the world, with its cravings, is passing away, but he who does God's will continues for ever.

Simply put, ou me eis aion is conveyed by the English word “never” though without indication of the double negative.

>>Without going into much of the pertinent syntactical discussions, the common translation as “shall never die” is based on mere doctrinal bias and not proper exegesis. The preposition eis opens up an new and separate clause in that sentence (“into the ages”) and, out of simple syntactical logic cannot be split up and then, as you are claiming, back assimilated into a prior clause, with the rest of the clause from which it would have been taken out of just left completely untranslated. Doctrinal bias plays a large, even if subconscious, part in even scholarly translation endeavors. I have witnessed this many, many times.<<

That’s a lot of Greek scholars translating with “doctrinal bias”, yes? Should that be the case, one is then forced to reevaluate the veracity of Holy Writ in general…

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:NJK

And 1 Thess 4:14 is exegetically explained in this post section

So these verses also do not support a view that ‘some people (which would have to be all Christians) do not die but go straight to heaven.’

Quote:jasd

Perhaps I read the link too fleetingly; however, the link seems to agree with my hypothesis – in contradistinction to the immediately above “these verses also do not support a view that ‘some people’ … do not die but go straight to heaven”. [ed.jasd]

>>Safe to say that you evidently did not properly read what is stated there. Btw, that’s from my blog and I thus know that it does not at all agree with your hypothesis.<<

“This passage is another sustained “Death Knell” to the SDA teaching on the State of the Dead for in all translations, it seems to clearly states that ‘Jesus will bring those who have died and gone to heaven with Him, from Heaven, at His return,’ implying that, as the popular false belief is in Christian circles, that Christians immediately goes to Heaven at their death.” [ed.jasd]

I took the above from your blog. It recognizes the meaning of the text and agrees with my hypothesis; however, you then proffered a divergent opinion…

>>In fact, while I do believe that martyrs are resurrected and taken to heaven, from the SOP vision in EW 18.2 where the redeemed from the earth later meet those martyr in heaven for the first time, I do not see that they will be making the trip with Jesus when He makes His glorious Second Coming appearance.<<

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

Addendum: I've only now noticed that though I addressed my posts to you - one or more defaulted to Stan as addressee.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: LHC

Quote:

to think He then is unable to find a way to communicate with those who place Him first in their lives, is unreasonable to assume.

I'm only assuming you read the underlined caveat

God blesses!

[NJK Project]

Quote:

NJK: For some strange reason “forever” was left untranslated in many Bible versions.

jasd: I think you’re referring to eis aion, yes?

Correct, albeit, technically, it (always) is (with the preposition eis): eis ton aion = literally: “into the (future) age”. In (NT) Greek, the presence/use of an article here makes this a specific “age” vs. another common one (as it will be shown/understood later).

“There is a distinct difference between forever and for ever. The first word is an adverb, meaning continuously or persistently – ‘he is forever losing his wallet, ‘she is forever complaining’. As two words, ‘for ever’ is an expression meaning for all future time, …”

First of all: where are you quoting this from. Secondly, I do not see that there is not such a quasi-colloquial distinction between “aion” alone vs. “eis to aion”.

"shall not never die for all future time". Okay, certainly tracks the text.

[NJK Project]

Quote:

NJK: Those added/subsequent claims of yours are exegetical fallacies. (Sounds/Seems like “voodoo” exegesis to me.<<

jasd: When the preposition eis is used before aion, the phrase is most often translated “for ever” – and when aion is without the preposition eis – it is translated “age”. Then there are the variable exceptions.

Now, I ask,

does that not describe the determinative nature of the term?

The grammatical/syntactical/exegetical fact of the matter is, in the NT Greek, (which can be different from even LXX Greek, or Patristic Greek, let alone Classical Greek), I have found 30 instance of the word “aion”. Only 3: (Eph 2:2; 2 Tim 4:10) do not involve eis at all, while all the rest have “eis ton aion”. And only Jude 1:13 has “eis aion” (i.e., without the article in between them).

Now, going back to the observed point I made early in the above post, “aion” alone refers to “this present age/world” as involved in those two verses above. But with the use of an article, it is “distinguishingly” pointing/referring to “another age’, namely ‘the future one to come.’ So the phrase/expression “eis ton aion” indeed actually, and distinctly, means “into the future age” and has an added meaning even when found in a phrase which has the strong Greek negation: “ou me” (=“never”).

And most interestingly enough, the lone NT usage of “eis aion” without an article, actually involves in the contextual meaning of that passage (cf. Jude 1:6), not ‘the future age to come”, but the present one, going back to its beginning.

By the way, the LXX has another 369 instance of “aion” and most of them are also as “eis ton aion” (‘into the future age’). I have gone through all to seen all of the ones which are not of that full construction but, Exod 15:18 jumps to my attention as it does not involve “eis” when saying “The LORD shall reign forever and ever” as that reign of God is not relegated merely “into” the future age, but is understood as Eternal as already being both also present and past.

In fact I’ll venture to posit the NT writers had a distinct understanding than the OT LXX translators as to the “future age” and their use of “eis ton aion” reflects their understanding that a distinct future age was coming, whereas those LXX translators say their present age as the one which would remain throughout the future. However Jesus’s teaching presented for the first time a age which will first begin with a reign of the righteous in Heaven (for the Millennium), and then, a new age.

My response may be a bit oblique and it may be that I could have provided more clarity; however, I am without a Bible program. Alas![/sigh]

[NJK Project]

Note: the number of times Saint John records the phrase eis aion or a variation thereof…

Jn 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; (eis aion ou me)

Jn 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. (ou me eis aion)

Jn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. (ou me eis aion)

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (ou me eis aion)

Jn 13:8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. (eis aion ou me)

1 Jn 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (meno eis aion)

[NJK Project]

Quote:

NJK: Safe to say that you evidently did not properly read what is stated there. Btw, that’s from my blog and I thus know that it does not at all agree with your hypothesis.

“This passage is another sustained “Death Knell” to the SDA teaching on the State of the Dead for in all translations, it seems to clearly states that ‘Jesus will bring those who have died and gone to heaven with Him, from Heaven, at His return,’ implying that, as the popular false belief is in Christian circles, that Christians immediately goes to Heaven at their death.”

jasd: I took the above from your blog. It recognizes the meaning of the text and agrees with my hypothesis; however, you then proffered a divergent opinion…

[NJK Project]

Originally Posted By: LHC

Quote:

to think He then is unable to find a way to communicate with those who place Him first in their lives, is unreasonable to assume.

I'm only assuming you read the underlined caveat

God blesses!

Huhh...your caveat is actually tangentially off issue here, especially since that reply was manifestly solely addressed to me (despite you indicating that you were responding to jasd’s post in post #573029): It is not that God is “unable”, it is that He is choosing not to, and that for fair, judicious reasons, as also stated in those texts I cited (Isa 6:8-13|Matt 13:10-17; Isa 28:5-13; 29:9-14; Dan 12:3-4, 9-10; 1 Cor 2:10-16; 2 Cor 3:4-18; Exod 4:21; Luke 10:21-24; etc). You seem to think that if people are not getting a claimed prophetic message from God then it cannot be genuine/from God, but the Bible shows and states otherwise. The understanding of a prophetic message depends on one’s relationship with, and obedience to, God. Case in point, while anyone can read the book of Revelation, how many actually understand what God is saying there, even within Christian circles, and that is because they are rejecting either ‘the faith of Jesus, the commandments/Sabbath of God and/or the Testimony of Jesus/SOP (Rev 12:17; 14:12; 19:10)

The fact is that, as Paul states, God is testifying to all through His Creation (Rom 1:18-31), however “communicating” involves a more direct and specific conveying (=prophets and prophecy) and that is only done by God to those who are fully in tune with Him, yet that communication can also be veiled, as those texts I had cited also show.

...and people who are rejecting Jesus Christ, whether it be wholly (atheist/unbelievers) or partially (as with many Christians), are rejecting God’s best ‘human communication’ endeavor. (Heb 1:1-3a).

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

your caveat is actually tangentially off issue here

Sorry! I thought this,"So why do people fall for people like Ernie Knoll", was the issue. And I believe the messages below are the major reason why Ernie Knoll and others with false doctrines not only survive but thrive.

"Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light.”"Matthew 11:29-30 NLT

Those who engage in this work will see so much to correct in themselves, and will devote so much time to prayer and to comparing their characters with God’s great standard, the divine law, that they will have no time to comment and gossip over the faults or dissect the characters of others. A sense of our own imperfections should lead us to humility and earnest solicitude lest we fail of everlasting life. The words of inspiration should come home to every soul: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”

[NJK Project]

Quote:

NJK: your caveat is actually tangentially off issue here

LHC: Sorry! I thought this,"So why do people fall for people like Ernie Knoll", was the issue.

Ohhh... I thought you were responding to the then ongoing line of discussion, and not that you were posting an “initial response” to the thread(!???) (As I have experienced many times, when people in such discussion no longer have an answer for what is being said on a topic, they then engage in this futile ‘resetting of the discussion’ to square one as if (or in hope that) any follow up answer would be different than the ones that they could not answer.) You’ll need to engage the answers which I have said which show that Knoll is not a false prophet. The problem is not with him but with the cherished waywardness and spiritual immaturity of those to whom he has been sent to communicate, namely ‘God’s professed people’.

-And your response is, even if for the thread’s main topic, still not Biblical. As I said and documented before, God has repeatedly and clearly said that He will ‘keep rebellious people in the dark’ so it is not a matter that ‘He cannot do something’. God does not have to grovel at the feet of rebellious men to get them to obey, and/or believe in, Him.

And I believe the messages below are the major reason why Ernie Knoll and others with false doctrines not only survive but thrive.

[NJK Project]

By the way LHC (et. al.,), do see here on what is means to have: ‘Christ’s True Character’. (BLJ 36.2)

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

#573537 - Today at 03:09

I rest my case.

God blesses!

[NJK Project]

Quote:

#573537 - Today at 03:09

I rest my case.

God blesses!

Great!!... (whatever that non-substantively involves)...yet the jury does not return a verdict in your favor! It’s exegesis and facts that govern “opinions” not the vive versa, and vacuousness, as you have been doing (and as case-in-point is that latest response of yours here). (Isa 28:17; Jer 9:6; Ezek 13:8-16; 19).

You would prefer me to be indifferent, ignoring and/or oblivious to incorrectness and falsities, but I most literally just cannot be paid to do so... I would “glibly” add “Sorry”...but I actually am not. (Acts 17:30-31 = Matt 5:6, 10-12)

[jasd]

Quote:

NJK: For some strange reason “forever” was left untranslated in many Bible versions.

jasd: I think you’re referring to eis aion, yes?

>>Correct, albeit, technically, it (always) is (with the preposition eis): eis ton aion = literally: “into ]b]the/b] (future) age”. In (NT) Greek, the presence/use of an article here makes this a specific “age” vs. another common one (as it will be shown/understood later).<<

Though I acknowledge that “into the age” may be as some translate the phrase – fact is that it may also be translated as: forever, for ever, for eternity, to the age, unto the age, etc. It may even be optative; that is, reflecting a ‘wishful’ Hebaistic idiom: "Oy vay, Gd forbid!" It seems obvious that the reason most translations have ignored it, is for the fact that it does no more than simply reinforce, unnecessarily, the already existing double negative ou me.

Understanding that the best interpretation of eis ton aion is “for ever” – it behooved the translators of our major Bible Translations to ignore its addition to the English text, which has proved ‘best sense’ to the English language.

Accepting your premise that the phrase ought to have been translated and that it literally means “into the (future) age”, let me say for now that: the could as well be dwelling upon the particular age in which the words were spoken, as there are any number of Biblical ages.

Furhermore, "die", as in "shall never die" ought be thought punctiliar and referencing the immediate point in time when spoken by Jesus Christ.

Some have proposed that eis ton aion is an attempt to translate the Hebraism ”ad olam – to the age” with their proximate aion; however, ”ad olam” speaks to eternity past as well eternity future – both beyond apprehending by man.

Matter-of-fact, John 11:26 is the pièce de résistance of the Gospel, the nexus, the crux; that is, no longer would the spirit of man be consigned to the grave until ages pass, but immediately upon the shedding of his tent, his mortal coil, his corporeality – receive the promise “shall not, never die, ever”.

Six days after raising the corrupted Lazarus, Jesus Christ was crucified...

It is inconceivable to think that having obtained the keys of death and hell, Jesus Christ - upon ascending to heaven – simply threw those keys onto a heavenly roll-top desk and slammed the lid… for millennia.

“…and the completeness which embraces all time and infinitude is AIWN,” --Aristotle, De Coelo, I, 9, c. 350 BC [/ed.jasd]

Posted this short response that I might not seem unseemingly lax…

(Received a very large box of VHS and DVD Gaither Gospel Singing this past Saturday – and am too busy enjoying – fantastic foot-stomping, Bible-thumping, and shouting music – and am not inclined to be messing with posts right now. Will be responding to your posts, shortly)

[NJK Project]

Quote:

NJK: For some strange reason “forever” was left untranslated in many Bible versions.

jasd: I think you’re referring to eis aion, yes?

NJK: Correct, albeit, technically, it (always) is (with the preposition eis): eis ton aion = literally: “into the (future) age”. In (NT) Greek, the presence/use of an article here makes this a specific “age” vs. another common one (as it will be shown/understood later).

jasd: Though I acknowledge that “into the age” may be as some translate the phrase – fact is that it may also be translated as: forever, for ever, for eternity, to the age, unto the age, etc.

It “may” be but only for preferential vs. accuracy reasons. I.e., some may not be seeing a pointed meaning/implication in that phrase [as I now have seen], and believe that it can be curtailed/assimilated in translation for an easier reading. However I see that a very significant and deliberate meaning is thus not being conveyed in such translations.

It may even be optative; that is, reflecting a ‘wishful’ Hebaistic idiom: "Oy vay, Gd forbid!"