Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, |
Bible Question:
If you are new to this thread, please read the prior two postings before this one to understand where I am coming from. Thank you. Why is it that when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation, you feel you must either horribly twist it out of context or in this case give the simple answer that since it doesn't make sense then it must just be because we don't know everyting God does? Couldn't this mean that your interpretation doesn't hold up and that Calvinism is no better than the other religions or cults that base their entire belief structure on a few verses taken out of context so that the can separate themselves and "Feel" superior to others? Why can't you see that the whole bible fits in with the "Free Will" theory while only a small portion can be used to justify "Election". Is there anyone out there can interpret this without the standard "It's just one of those mysteries"? I'm sorry if I come off as being harsh, but it's just that I'm getting frustrated trying to understand how someone can honestly read and interpret the whole bible and come away thinking that God chose some people to be saved and chose others that would not. I am willing to admit that I could be interpreting this incorrectly, but as of yet, have not been able to see where my interpretations err (on major subjects) when taking the whole bible into context. |
Bible Answer: PART ONE. It is not my purpose to sound unkind or to "feel" superior to others. But, I would like to make a few comments in answer to your previous questions on election). . . . To begin with, you are trying to disprove a doctrine -- election -- of which you have no knowledge or understanding. What attorney, professor or debater ever successfully disproved something of which he had absolutely no knowledge? An effective opponent of an idea would need to know all the main points and details of that idea before he could persuade others that the idea was false. It is obvious to me that all the shrill anti-election people are clueless as to what election is and when, where and how the Bible speaks of the elect or election. . . . By the way, branding all election as Calvinism is a serious error. There is more than one interpretation of the Bible doctrine of election. So why label as Calvinists everyone who believes in the Bible doctrine of election? Also, to refer to Calvinists as "the elect" or to the elect as "Calvinists" is absurd. Election and people spoken of as the elect exist, according to the Bible, whether you and I believe or don't believe in Calvinism and regardless of how you define election. . . . And why use the words Calvinism and Calvinist when replying to a posting, when that posting never once mentions Calvinism or Calvinist. If one is not even familliar with the terminology of that which he is debating, he will never convince anyone of anything. I myself wrote two lengthy answers defining and defending election, yet I never once mentioned the word Calvinism. . . . To set the record straight: 1) the word "freewill" is used 22 times in the NIV Bible. In every single reference the adjective freewill is used to modify the noun "offering(s)." So how does the Bible's use of the word freewill support the idea that the doctrine of election is false? . . . 2) The dictionary defines the adjective "elect" as "chosen" or "carefully selected". So elect and chosen clearly mean the same thing. You say "only a small portion (of the Bible) can be used to justify "election". For your information, while "freewill" occurs in the Bible (NIV) only 22 times and only in connection with the word "offering(s)", the word "elect" appears 11 times; "election" 3 times; "choose" (which means the same thing as "elect") appears 66 times; "chose" 45 times; and "chosen" 125 times. This gives us a total of 250 occurences of the words "elect", "election" or their equivalents choose, chose and chosen, but only 22 occurences of the word freewill, and then only in connection with offerings. . . . You refer to "when something in the Bible doesn't fit with your interpretation." If you were familiar, not with Calvinism, but with the BIBLE DOCTRINE of election, you would know that: there isn't one verse in the Bible which -- when properly translated and understood in the context and in relation to all other verses dealing with the same subject -- not one word that contradicts the Bible's teaching on the subject of election. The only reason I brought up the idea that many of the people who cannot accept election are the same people who don't grasp the concept of it is this: it is true. Nonbelievers in election invariably are people who can neither define nor explain what it is that they are opposed to. It is apparent from the comments written by opponents of election that these people have not read the answers supporting election. They've neither read the answers, looked up the Scriptures cited, nor given the other side a fair hearing. |