The BIBLE Does not support the "TRINITY THEORY"
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be using many Bible to prove this wrong. My opponent should be well educated about the trinity as well as the Bible message.
This is a great topic and one that has been debated for almost 2000 years.
With respect to your position, I think it is worth acknowledging to our readers that the Bible itself does not actually use the word "trinity". That might seem to some to support your position and be an indication that the concept itself is suspect. But mention in the Bible of the word "trinity" is not necessary for the concept to be a reality, any more than mention of anything anywhere is necessary for its existence to be true.
It is also an unfortunate fact that it would seem that some well-meaning scribe might actually have tried to "explain" the concept of the trinity in verses that appear in later texts of one of the epistles (letters) of John as recorded in the New Testament. (Although even in this case, the scribe does not use the word "trinity".) The fact that this apparent addition does not occur in the earliest manuscripts, therefore, suggests that it should not be considered authoritative.
Nonetheless, this ill-advised attempt to explain the concept does not invalidate the truth of the concept itself. In fact, it might actually give credence to the doctrine when one considers independent historical evidence that this would seem to have been a strongly held belief dating back to the early centuries of the first Millenium A.D.
Notwithstanding the absence of any treatise on the concept of the "trinity" within the pages of the Bible itself, and despite well-meaning but inappropriate efforts by some in past centuries to try to explain this mysterious doctrine, there is still very compelling evidence in the very language of the Old Testament that supports the concept of God existing in three persons.
It is interesting that in the original Hebrew, the Old Testament uses the word Elohim to describe "God" in the very first verse of the very first book of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. It says very simply, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" This very powerful statement at the start of this great collection of writings was so striking that it led the Bible scholar, Schofield, to comment very profoundly that "the Bible begins with God....not with philosophic arguments for his existence"
But to return to my point, what is particularly interesting about the word for God in this verse ("Elohim") is that it is plural in form. Even more interesting is that in Hebrew, there are three options rather than simply the two options of singular and plural as we have in English. In Hebrew, the options are singular, dual, and plural. And so it is noteworthy that Elohim is the plural form of the word for "God". So. when the Hebrew scriptures, translated into English say that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth", right from the very beginning of this document, it seems that there was an understanding that God, somehow, was not either singular or dual, but actually, you might say "three" at the very least.
So the basis for the very concept of the Trinity was laid in the very first words of the Hebrew scriptures.
The ideas that God has made himself known mysteriously and more specifically in the three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is something that is expressed by Jesus himself and developed in the New Testament writings. This fact is known to most who have read the new testament, regardless of their level of belief in its truth. So, for now, at least, I will suspend arguments relating to these many well-known passages of scripture.
Of greater importance, at this stage, perhaps, is for us to realize that though the concept of the trinity is a very difficult one for us to comprehend, that is not a reason to invalidate the concept itself.
There are many things in life that are difficult for us to comprehend, such as the concept of a universe that is infinite, for example. In our world, everything we know has a beginning and an end. And so it is difficult for us even to understand the concept of a God who has no beginning or end, in the same way that we may find it difficult to understand a universe that has no beginning or end. But in the Bible, God is described as actually being the beginning and the end (the Alpha and Omega of Revelation Chapter 1, or the Pre-existent One described as "the Word" in John's Gospel, chapter 1, verses 1 and 2, (which, I might add, also is quite similar to the very first verse of the book of Genesis).
Therefore, because most scientists believe that the universe is, in fact, without end, or infinite, we must suspend our disbelief if we are going to be able to accept this widely held scientific position, no matter how difficult the concept is for us to completely understand.
In the same way, though the concept of the "trinity" may be a difficult one to comprehend, and though the Bible itself may not even actually use the word "trinity", those of us who believe that God has revealed himself in the words of scripture, must suspend our disbelief in favour of a position in which we must acknowledge that we do not understand everything that the Bible teaches us.
In summary for this phase, I suggest to you here, that this somewhat agnostic position (or one lacking knowledge) is a far more reasonable position to take than one which suggests that if we don't understand it, then we must consider it not to be accurate.
However when it comes to the Bible, many people think its too complex to understand, and that the trinity is too complex,because God is a mysterious God. I will show you that God himself does not want us to be confuse about who he is, he wants us to come to know completely, but it takes time and lots of patient. Yes i do understand that the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible.
The Book of Genesis, when reading we have to keep in mind that the Bible, is not in chronological order, you have to carefully read it to know when its explaining something, and when that thing is actually happening. and i'm quite interested that you choice Genesis to start. Now "Elohim" when referring to Jehovah 'Elo-him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. Which is what is in
Genesis 1:1 " King James version "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
American standard version: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Byington version: " At the beginning God's creating the heavens and the earth."
and all other translation after these state exactly this: In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
The Title Elohim brings attention to Jehovah's strength as creator, that shows up 35 times in account of creation and every time the verb was describing what Jehovah did said and did in the singular number if you read all the way tile Ge 1:1-4.
At Genesis 1:1 God is translated from Elohim, which is plural in Hebrew. this is where the trinitarians construe to be an indication of the trinity. they try to explain this in Deuteronomy 6:4 Kj: " Hear, o Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."
AS: "Hear, o Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."
BYGT: " Listen, Israel: our God is Jehovah; Jehovah is one."
And every other translation after that says: "Listen,o Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."
once again the plural form of noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. this same example is found many place in the Bible. here are a few that i know of.
Gensis 40:30 KJ "the man, who is the lord of the land, spake roughly to us, and took us for spies of the country" to save time its the same in other translation.
and Mark 12:29.
Now to clear the air of confusion, it just so happen that God clearly identify himself in this very book of Genesis.
Once again remember that the word "God" itself is just a title, even the Egyptian, the Roman, the Greek, and sadly even the Israelite knew about it, they made themselves many gods.
But nobody knew of "Jehovah"
Genesis 4:4 AS: "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had noticed unto Abel and his offering."
KJ " And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and his offering."
BYGT " And Abel too brought some of the firstborn young of his flocks and the fat pieces. And Jehovah notice Abel and his offering."
Now if you notice something in all the translation that i have been doing, the King James Bible have gotten the name "Jehovah" out of the book, but every other Bible still have it, including the original Hebrew scripture. why is that you ask? Because the King James Bible have over 1,700 mistakes in it, these mistake are not accident, they where put their to support the trinity, that is why the Trinity just does not make sense and people think that the Bible is extremely complex, this is what happen when you try to change a book that is already complete. oh and i do know how and why they changed it. "next round i will go more in detail on that subject"
But at Genesis 4:4 that was a name given to the reader, and that was the very first time the name Jehovah came into the Bible not a title. Lord is a Title,so is God, however Jehovah is not a title.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my response to your topic.
I think you're getting a bit off track here, however, and away from the subject of the Bible's support for the "trinity theory".
But to comment briefly on the issue of translations that you brought up, throughout recent history (the last 5 centuries), there have been many translations of the Bible by many scholars, who had no alterior motives except to make the Word of God accessible to people in their own language and in some cases also many other foreign languages. The King James Version of the Bible (1608), was the first widely used English translation. And, while it is true, as you pointed out, that there were numerous errors in this edition, this was entirely due to the manuscripts that were available to the scholars of the time. Since then, many more manuscripts have been discovered, especially the huge archaeological find of what has been called the Dead Sea Scrolls, back in the late 1940's at Qumran. So the many translations that have been done especially in the last 50 to 60 years, have been recognized as being much more faithful to the original manuscripts which pre-date what was available to 17th century scholars. I myself use a better and more modern translation than the KJV, although I confess that my memory work is largely from the KJV, because that is what I grew up on. A particular translation, however, should not compromise our point of discussion at all if we make reference to the earliest available manuscripts.
It probably isn't helpful or necessary to accuse so many dedicated and well-respected scholars with a lack of integrity by suggesting that they had a purpose other than the genuine desire to provide the best possible translation that they could for the benefit of the masses, during the era following the invention of Gutenberg's printing press about a century and a half earlier.
On another point, altogether, I find it puzzling that you have mentioned the name "Jehovah" about 14 times, seeming to attach some special significance to it in connection with our debate, even though this name does nothing to either support or contradict what you refer to as the "trinity theory". And, regarding the names of God used in the Bible, there are a great many other names also, not just YHWH or Yahweh, commonly referred to in English as Jehovah. But the existence of other names for God in the Bible is also not the point, so I don't wish to sidetrack the debate by getting into a discussion of God's many various names.
In the first round, however, and I would like to draw us both back to this key point, I made reference to the name Elohim used in Genesis Chapter 1 and verse 1, which fairly addresses your proposed topic of whether or not the Bible can support what you refer to as the "trinity theory".
I'm not familiar with the Byington translation. If you were quoting this translation, it certainly has a very unusual character and English structure particularly with respect to the possessive form of the word "God's" ("At the beginning, God's created the heavens and the earth." Did you really mean "God is" created the heavens? Is that a reference to the phrase that God uses in the Old Testament to describe himself - "I Am That I Am". We could pursue this line a bit more, perhaps, but again, it seems tangential, at best, to the topic of the debate.
However, putting this oddity aside, we perhaps don't need to get into a discussion of translations, as they're not integral to this debate anyway. We should focus on the words found in the ancient manuscripts. And the fact remains that although the word "trinity" does not exist in manuscripts, nor in any translation of which I'm aware, the concept is clearly present in both the Old and New Testaments in all translations. And, you yourself have acknowledged the fact of the plurality of the word Elohim that supports this position.
Timeworn forfeited this round.
I have to maintain my position that although the word trinity is not used anywhere in the Bible, the concept of God existing mysteriously in three persons...the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is presented throughout the Bible.
I would like to comment, however, on the importance of this doctrine as a key tenet of the faith.
There is probably no point of scripture that has been attacked by more people than this one. And the reason, I believe, is because of its importance. In the New Testament we read that "if Christ be not risen, we are yet in our sins". And therefore we would be condemned to pay the penalty for our own sins. This is what the early Christians came to understand as the most important point about the life and ministry of Jesus, and why they preached "Christ crucified and risen". This is what emboldened Jesus' disciples who during those few days of Passover when Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried, had been a very discouraged and scattered group of followers. It was when he rose again that they began to understand what the scriptures had to say about the need for the sacrificial lamb to die once and for all for our sins. And it was his resurrection that opened their eyes, that confirmed to them whom he was....the Holy One of Israel, Emmanuel (God With Us), the one who was the author of creation, the one who could forgive sins.
The people asked,"Who can forgive sins but God?" when they heard him publicly forgive the sins of some who came to him. Likewise when the Jews took up stones to stone him for heresy, it was this point that upset them. They heard him say that he and his Father were one and the same (I and my Father are One) and understood that he was claiming to be Messiah. They wished to stone him for blasphemy because of his statements about himself that clearly were claiming equality with God. They knew that their Messiah would be God, but did not believe that he was Messiah.
I'd like to take this one step further. Not only is our faith in vain if Christ be not risen, but our sins could not be forgiven by his sacrificial death in the first place if he were not the "lamb without blemish". And only God is without sin. So an attack on the "deity" of Christ is to attack one of the most fundamental of Biblical doctrines. Only God had the power to forgive sins. So if Christ is not God, then he had no power to forgive sins, and without the forgiveness of our sins, we are all condemned. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". And "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Therefore, if Jesus was not the Messiah, the Holy One of Israel, God in the flesh, then he had no power to save us at all, or to make any of the claims that he made. ("I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me" - John 14:6. "I am the resurrection and the life. He that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whoever lives and believes in me shall never die" - John 11:25
Many people during Jesus' lifetime debated who Jesus was also. He asked his followers "Whom do men say that I am?". And the answers of the people were many and varied. But Jesus went on to ask his followers, "But whom do you say that I am?" because this was such an important point that he wanted them to understand. And Peter rose to the challenge and declared, "Thou art the Christ". Now, all Jews knew that the Christ or Messiah would be God in flesh, and that he would "save his people from their sins". So Peter's declaration was very significant. He was declaring Jesus to be the God of Israel. And Jesus immediately blessed him for his faith.
So those who attack this point are attacking the very person of Christ and this includes not only who he was, but also his power and authority to do everything that he claimed he would do. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". All of Israel knew that their Messiah was God himself.
Satan is very well aware of this point, and therefore it is not surprising that Satan has tempted so many to attack this important doctrine.
Don't be deceived, Timeworn, by those who would have you sidetracked by issues such as differences between translations, or who cannot comprehend the mystery of God in three persons and so prefer to deny it.
Rather, do as the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, "study to show yourself approved...rightly dividing the word of truth". Don't rely upon magazines published by those who want you to believe their doctrine. Go right to the scriptures yourself, as I have likewise shared with you. And ask God to reveal His truth to you.
Dating from early times, there is the version known as the Samaritan Pentateuch, which, as the name implies, contains only the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is really a transliteration of the Hebrew text into Samaritan script, developed from the ancient Hebrew script.
This transliteration was made by the Samaritans""descendants of those left in Samaria following the conquest of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel in 740 B.C.E. and those brought in by the Assyrians at that time.
The Samaritans incorporated the worship of Israel with that of their own pagan gods, and they accepted the Pentateuch. It is thought that they made their transcription of it about the fourth century B.C.E.,Although the text contains about 6,000 variations from the Hebrew text, many of them are minor details. Few of the existing manuscript copies are older than the 13th century C.E. Some references are made to the Samaritan Pentateuch in footnotes of the New World Translation.
SO when the KJV was being translated they did had very good reliable source.
The Masoretic Text,
The Consonantal Text,
The Masora Reveals Alterations,
The Latin Vulgate,
The Greek Septuagint,
The Aramaic Targums,
The Samaritan Pentateuch.
All of these were available to use before Dead Sea Scrolls In 1947 which is a very little part of the Bible.
The Trinity: Many religions teach that God is a Trinity. They say that "the Father is God, the Son [Jesus] is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."
The Bible does not even mention the word "Trinity," nor does it teach that Jeho- vah is three persons in one. Jehovah alone is God. First Corinthians 8:6 says: "There is actually to us one God the Father." Jehovah is the Supreme One. Jesus is, not God, but "the Son of God." (1 John 4:15) Likewise, the holy spirit is not God. The holy spirit is not even a person. It is God"s active force. "Acts 1:8; Ephesians 5:18.
M4; The Soul: Many religions teach that the soul is something inside a person that can never die. The Bible teaches that the soul is the person and, of course, a person can die."Genesis 2:7; Ezekiel 18:4.
M4; Hellfire: False religions teach that the souls of the wicked are tormented forever in hell. The Bible states that the dead are "con- scious of nothing at all." (Ecclesiastes 9:5) The Bible also teaches that "God is love."
(1 John 4:8) Jehovah, the loving God, would never torture others with fire.
You can not prove that these three being are one using the Bible, because the Bible clearly state what they are, the idea of an internal soul is coming from Plato doctrine, many Christendom thought he got it from the Bible. If you read the Bible hell was a places outside of Jerusalem that was use to burn body of criminals, Jehovah and Jesus use that place when talking about the end of days, because it was a horrible place. Concerning human being touture in an eternal flame, Jehovah God himself said such idea is not even in his heart. The Bible also tell what happen when you die.
19 for there is an outcome* for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome.+ As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit.+ So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place.+ They all come from the dust,+ and they all are returning to the dust.+
"His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; on that very day his thoughts perish."
Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10
"The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all .".". Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going."
John 11:11, 13, 14
"[Jesus] added: "Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him." Jesus, however, had spoken about his death. But they imagined he"was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly: "Lazarus has died.""
So clearly that eliminate the whole idea of an enteral soul.
You still have yet to prove this wrong.
And I do apologize for the late respond.
The way a debate works is that there is a two-way discussion on a subject. Each party to the debate is supposed to address the arguments of the other, or make a rebuttal, as they pertain to the topic. From this standpoint, there are a number of serious problems with your presentation, which make it very difficult for us to actually have a debate.
So for this round (Round 4), I wish to respond in point form:
1 Most of what you have written has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not the Bible supports the doctrine of the trinity.
2 You have failed to make a rebuttal of any of the evidence that I have given, preferring to go off topic to discussions of many other passages of scripture and unrelated topics.
3 Having spent time teaching English, I am very aware when someone is not writing in their own words, and there are times in your most recent submission for round 4 when you have clearly been copying something written by someone else. The first paragraph, the 5-line fifth paragraph, and the last three sentences would appear to be written by you. But almost everything else is either a quotation of scripture or seems to have been written by someone else. The writing style is totally different, such as your use of the word "transliteration". And unfortunately, even these things, likewise neither attempt to address the topic nor respond to or refute any of my arguments. So there is actually no debate happening here. You simply are expounding on a lot of different topics.
4 I am surprised that you chose to forfeit round 4 simply because you were travelling, because internet is so widely available. But if you needed to delay because you were seeking help from someone else to supply you with content, I understand why this may have been necessary. Your assistant, however, should at least have supplied content that connects with your chosen topic.
5 You have mentioned in paragraph 2 what I have already mentioned at the beginning of round one, namely, that the word trinity does not occur in the Bible. This, however, as I already pointed out, is not an argument in favour of your position because the concept of the trinity exists throughout the Bible in spite of the fact that the word itself is not mentioned. And repeating what I've already said as if it is your argument is hardly convincing.
6 You have taken 1st Corinthians chapter 8 verse 6 out of its context by stating only the opening of the verse. And I'm sure you realize that "any text without its context is a pretext". In this case, you cut off the verse after the first phrase. The verse in its entirety actually says: "Yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" The wording of this verse is quite striking because the description of God and the description of Jesus which immediately follows are virtually identical in both word and meaning. This is a powerfully striking unity which is in keeping with the concept of the trinity. The only difference, really, is the use of the prepositions "from" and "for" in the first case, and "through" in the latter case. These clearly relate to the role that each has. Jesus took on flesh to become the servant, to make the sacrifice for our sins. Jesus is described as the heir and the creator. Jesus is the one through or "by whom also he made the worlds" (Hebrews chapter 1 verse 2). Yet Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 says that God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth. While the Holy Spirit is not the topic of writing in these passages, there is a striking unity in these passages when it comes to mention of God (the Father), and God (the Son) which is unmistakable. And if Hebrews records that Jesus is the one by whom the heavens and the earth were created, and Genesis 1 verse 1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, once again there is a seeming unity between God (the Father) and Jesus (the Son). Yet in some mysterious way, God is expressed in two persons, even though there is only one God. I'm not saying that this concept is easy to understand, but if we must understand everything completely before we can believe it, that is certainly a very arrogant position to take, not to mention even unscientific.
7 As I mentioned in Round 1, the word for God used in Genesis 1: 1 (Elohim) is neither singular nor dual, but plural. You have given only the vaguest of explanations as to why this mysterious plurality described here exists in the one God.
8 I have quoted passages such as Isaiah, where Jesus is described as "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". You have chosen to ignore these altogether.
9 You have mentioned the following however: the death of the soul, teaching on hellfire, the relationship between men and animals, the release of man's spirit when he dies, man's state of consciousness after death, and Jesus' comments on the death of Lazarus. None of these have anything at all to do with the subject of the existence of God in three persons, which most of us refer to as the doctrine of the trinity. And, even more perplexing, is that at the end of this you state that this is proof that man doesn't have an eternal soul. Not only is there no apparent connection between your conclusion and the previous passages, but all of these points are also entirely off topic.
10 Even though it is entirely off topic, for the sake of having some small semblance of a debate here, I will respond to one of you comments. You said, basically, (and I paraphrase) that a loving God would not send someone to eternal damnation (torture in hellfire). And to support your point that God is loving, you quoted the famous verses in the Epistle of John which talks about one of the attributes of God's character - which is love (1 John 4: 8). You are absolutely right that one of God's attributes is love. It was love that led Jesus to take on human form in order to die for our sins. But as I'm sure you know, another of the attributes of God is that He is a righteous God. And God cannot condone sin. Romans chapter 6, verse 23 says that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Wages are earnings. A gift is an expression of love. These two attributes of God's righteousness and love appear together in this single verse. The death referred to here is not the death of the believer, but the death of the unbeliever, who chooses to remain in the condemned state that the Bible says afflicts all people..."For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3: 23). It is our sinful condition that condemns all of us. And if we do not accept God's plan for salvation and die in our sins, then the penalty is total separation from God (spiritual death). So, it is not God who condemns us. We condemn ourselves if we do not believe God's Word and accept the gift of salvation through trust in Jesus who died to redeem us from our sins. The Bible says that those who accept Jesus as their Saviour pass from death unto life. We are dead in the first place. Only through salvation, can we be made alive. And so we see that the fact that the unbeliever is "condemned already" does not in any way violate God's character. He is at the same time a righteous God who must cast away all sin, and a God of love who does not wish for anyone to perish.
(See the following link: http://www.brandonweb.com...)
It would be encouraging for me to know that you actually have listened and thought about what I have written, and that this will be reflected in your next response. I have responded to what you have written. You should likewise do the same. This way we can actually connect and have a meaningful exchange of thoughts and opinions.
Timeworn forfeited this round.
I'm sorry you decided not to take the time to really discuss this topic that you suggested. I'm hoping that you didn't just raise this topic so that you could discuss your beliefs, and those of the religious group with whom you associate.
And, I also hope that my responses have perhaps opened up your understanding that the Bible does support the doctrine of the trinity, even though the word "trinity" itself is not used. Obviously, we hardly began to touch upon the many passages of scripture that support the concept that somehow, in ways that we don't fully understand, God has revealed himself to man in three persons, usually referred to as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
I'd like to say, however, that the doctrine of the trinity, while it is important in the sense that it centres on the person of Christ (who He is), and there are reasons why this is important, there are other very important things to understand about the Bible as well. And it doesn't matter what translation you use, so debate over this point is irrelevant when it comes to the major details of its message, because the differences between translations are really very minor in the grand scheme of things.
So, in my final entry, I want to depart from the topic that you proposed, since you failed to respond to almost all of the entries and arguments that I made anyway, and give you my own understanding of the Bible's key message from my personal study of the Bible for many decades. This key message doesn't focus on the topic that you proposed for this debate, but rather on basic or core truths that God wants all of us to consider.
Here is what I've discovered about what the Bible teaches no matter what translation you choose to use:
1 From beginning to end, the Bible is the story of man's separation from God due to sin, and God's plan to redeem fallen man through the sacrifice of His Messiah. Everywhere in the Bible, you read stories that provide the evidence of man's sinful nature. And throughout the Bible, there are many hundreds of stories, texts, imagery, parables, etc., that support this theme. In the same way, from the very first book of the Bible (Genesis) we receive stories, texts, images, parables, etc., that reveal and point forward to God's plan of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus at Calvary. A powerful example of this message is in the words of Abraham to Isaac ("God will provide himself a lamb for an offering".) Abraham, of course, understood this in a very local context (his interaction that day between himself and his own son). But as part of the recorded message of Genesis, the author, (likely Moses), was inspired to record a history that had implications for future events that he, (Moses), may not even have understood himself at the time.
2 The Bible makes it clear not only that we are all sinners, but that nobody can earn salvation. Our sinful condition condemns us, no matter what we do to try to live properly. The Bible says that "all our righteousness is as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6) and that not one single person on our planet is righteous (Romans 3:23).
3 Therefore, since salvation cannot be earned, it is a gift from God (Romans 6: 23). Nobody can earn a gift. We can earn condemnation (Romans 6: 23), but not salvation. And so, since we cannot earn our salvation through good works, for example (Ephesians 2: 8,9), we can be saved only by accepting God's free gift in the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. That means that we must first recognize that what God says in the Bible about our fallen condition is true. Without recognizing this fact, what reason would we have to take the next step of repenting or desiring to turn away from our sins. But once we recognize that we are sinners, and that Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins, so that we can have our relationship with God restored, we must thank Jesus for providing himself as a sacrifice for our sins, and accept this as God's gift of salvation for us (John 3:16). Jesus himself told his disciples "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me".(John 14:6).
These are the most basic and important points about the message of the Bible. And there are many hundreds of other verses that support the statements that I've made above. I encourage you to study these on your own. A Bible Concordance is a very useful tool, however, these days, with computers and online search engines, it's relatively easy to discover a great many references to a particular phrase almost instantly.
Now each person can decide for themselves whether or not they choose to believe what the Bible says, but it is pointless to try to suggest that the Bible doesn't teach the above three things, or that debate over the accuracy of any particular phrase can overrule the overall vast multitude of evidence.
I trust, Timeworn, that if you are sincere about wanting to know God's truth as is clearly expressed in any translation of the Bible, and not just manipulating this topic to promote the doctrine of your particular religious affiliation, then you will want to examine what I've written about in this forum as well as the rest of what the Bible says. Do your own research in order to reach well-educated conclusions.
The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans is a particularly well-written and comprehensive discourse on this subject. It would be a very good place for you to begin your own personal study.
I wish you all the best with your studies. Ask God to give you the wisdom to recognize his truth as you study your Bible. And, rely on your study of your Bible itself (2 Timothy 2:15), rather than study of support materials such as magazines, newsletters, devotionals, or other books written by man about the Bible or that attempt to explain what the Bible has to say, but that are not "God-breathed" (inspired). Remember that it is the Bible itself that God has said is profitable for study (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) and that will lead you to a real understanding of the truths that God has revealed in scripture.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.