Search results

Agreed, it's not a pivotal issue, though I firmly believe that Jesus' "them" is all the ungodly, not the eight. Does the parable of the soils tell us that 25% of those who hear the word of God will be saved? No, it doesn't. It's not arithmetic, it's the principle of distinction. Some will be...

Yada yada yada. This is an old canard, and has no substance to it. You're simply blowing wind.

This is used by at least one onlyist to "prove" that it is not "our" faith that saves, but Jesus' faith.

Since the KJV is demonstrably not perfect, that subject is off the table.

I can agree with you that the translation is still the word of God. However, any translation of the word of God is the word of God. That is not exclusive to the KJV, no matter what the onlyists choose to believe.

I say you're ignoring the context of the flood, where the ungodly were taken. Noah got ready; his neighbours did not.

Take another look at verse 39: ... the flood came, and took them all away... Who is "them"? The same ones who were eating and drinking, etc. In other words, not watching for the Lord. He is coming, and Then shall... one shall be taken (v. 40). The words "took" and "taken" are semantically...

This would fit better in the News forum.

Genesis 7:20 "The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." The waters covered the mountains, not merely the land, to a depth of fifteen cubits (25 feet is close enough). However, we err if we assume that the present-day mountains existed at that time. Geological...

Your position is inconsistent with the context of the flood, which is clearly presented in verses 36 - 39. In the flood, the ones "taken" were taken by destruction, not by rapture. Watch for what? The coming of the Lord. Noah paid attention to God ("watched for His coming"), and was ready when...

The rapture? Or perhaps the destruction.

Premartial relations? Just skip the diplomacy and go straight for the guns!

Once again your bias blinds you. That the second part of the sentence implies impropriety in the pattern of eating, so the impropriety is implied in the first part of the verse as well. The key is excess, not mere consumption.

Your "logic" isn't logical. A person known for eating food is not necessarily known for eating excessively. A glutton is known for eating excessively. Similarly, a person known for drinking wine is not necessarily known for drinking excessively.

Simple... one fits their narrative, the other doesn't, so the one must be grape juice and the other must be alcoholic.

Really? Then how is it that they were unaware of the Granville Sharp rule? Your assertion is ridiculously devoid of reality.

I doubt strongly that alcohol was the cause of his attempt. Your implication is no better than the claim that all those who died with Covid died of Covid.

Dude looks like a lady...

So says every Christian. That doesn't mean that you, or anyone in particular, has a corner on the truth. My contention is that the people who appeal to this are the ones whose ideas are most worthy of suspicion.

Fair enough. However, I would suggest that you don't drag the offense of other threads into this one. It only muddies the water.