how do you respond to "the problem of hell" which is, why would a just and mercifull god create such a place as hell. and do you believe in an empty, void hell or a fiery lke being prodded and standing next to ghandi
Good example of not thinking out the implications of the terms used. You describe God as 'just', which directly implies condemnation. The point of the video is the attempt by many to avoid this uncomfortable thought.
The mercy of God, in being born on Earth and suffering on a cross to save us, cannot be doubted.
The main point, though, is that God's justice really *is* just, which is more than India received from Gandhi and his dynasty.
i went to his church today..it's an hour away from my house. I've been praying for a church for a few mths now an God led me there..even though it's that far I'm going to commit myself to going there
Oh, my. Thanks for letting me know. Mr. "lawdestroyer" is now blocked. I have no interest in even having the possibility of wasting time to read comments like that to see if I should approve them or not. Take care.
Jesus talked more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. Get all the verses that talk about hell together. Jesus's remarks on them will be far more in number than the rest of the Bible.
So are we talking about the entire Bible now or just Jesus? In your first comment, you referred to Jesus; in your second you're talking all of Scripture.
parable of Lazurus, the context of adultery to cast out ones eye,and separating the wheat from the tares. where he talked of heaven far exceeds these occasions
Matthew 5 - 3 times; Matthew 10; Matthew 11; Matthew 16; Matthew 18; Matthew 23 - 2 times; Mark 9 - 3 times; Luke 10; Luke 12; Luke 16; Rev 1. That's more than "a few occasions".
I think the real issue here is that since He has mentioned it at least one time, isn't that enough? In other words, how many times does He have to say it in order for it to be something we should fear God killing us and throwing us into? (Matt 10:28) Do you hold that if the tally for how many times He used the word "Heaven" is more than the number of times He said "Hell" that the doctrine of hell could be dismissed? What point are you trying to make with your argumentation?
my point is 6:30 in the video "Christ spoke more about hell than he did heaven?
now we see parables of heaven, yes there is mention of hell but what was Jesus emphasis?
Heaven. if we hold the point of view that we just escape hell,than aren't we taking away the real meaning of fellowship? or the gospel message?
the bottom line is we do not escape hell but have a place made for us in the kingdom.if we only escaped hell why would we not just remain in the grave forever?
"You take your worldly wisdom and go your way, return to the library with the dusty scholars.
I'll go mine with God and my AV: believing that the Bible I got saved by is 100% true and without error - and yes, inspired in English. " <-- You may go your own way, but you're going away with your ignorance.
I wouldn't use the term "counter" that because the Bible as a whole affirms that God is not about the numbers as in Luke 15:8-10 where He says, "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? ...
"When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!' "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." ...
I believe you may be referring to Acts 2:41, though, where it states "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." However, later in the same book, Luke states, "And as many as were ORDAINED unto eternal life believed." (Luke 13:48 - Emphasis mine.) which proves God isn't interested in some random plan of getting as many decisions that say Jesus is my Savior as possible. He has a set purpose.
I agree. It's just like what Paul Washer said when he quoted Bill Graham in which Bill wished that he would rather see 5% of true repentance among Christians than just majority of self-proclaiming Christians
If you don't believe the bible now, don't bother looking for it then.
Do us a favour, will ya? Don't be a hypocrite and a liar and tell anybody you actually believe the Bible is inerrant - when the truth is you'd just be blowing gas about something you never actually read in all your life.
I believe the Bible to be theopneustos (God-breathed) [2Tim 3:16]. I don't believe that the AV is the ONLY translation of Greek text that is theopneustos. For example, the Greek word apistos means unbeliever; infidel.
In 2Cor 6:14, the 1611 AV says, "Be ye not unequally yolked together with UNBELIVERS..." The 1599 Geneva says, "Be not unequally yolked with the INFIDELS..." Where is there a difference in the defitions of the two?
Again, the question, what was the "perfect word" before 1611's AV?
"Did you read the original letter Paul wrote to Timothy?
So you can't be 100% certain that Gk word was even used." <-- So are you saing that if we don't have the original letter that we can't be sure of the authenticity of the words used? Even though I don't agree with that, would not that contradict your own assertion that the AV 1611 is inerrant if that were true?
Surely you don't believe that the AV 1611 was the divinely inspired Word of God and not a translation of the original Kione-Greek text. Where you do think Erasmus of Rotterdam, the translator of the text used in the KJV from Greek to English, got the text he translated?
Again, the question, what was the "perfect word" before 1611's AV?
"The perfect word is the AV - show me anything and I'll judge it by that." <-- The AV is a TRANSLATION. You can judge it by that, but don't think because a TRANSLATION uses another word WITH THE SAME MEANING as the original Greek word that it is somehow corrupt.
Erasmus had the argument presented to him that he shouldn't TRANSLATE the Vulgate to English because it had been "preserved by God for over 1100 years." Why would the mentality that he went against to translate the AV be alright for you to make today in defense of it?
The interesting thing is how KJV-Onlyists must prove inspiration of the KJV by militating against inspiration of the Greek text. They have arguments based on tradition and half truth. Though the KJV is an accurate translation, I can't agree with them because I believe too strongly in the doctrine of inspiration and that the Greek text of the Scriptures must be referred to because it was inspired of God. They are not able to get the principle of translation and they are left with less precision.
If you never saw the original manuscript (the autograph) or an ancient dictionary, then how in the world can you assert the fanciful notions that you are 100% CERTAIN that that any particular word was used or what it exactly meant in English?
If you say, "I have faith" - well in what? Man or God?
I have faith that God gave us a Bible in English, you have faith that scholars can give you "reasonably reliable" meanings.
Nay, you are logically inconsistent. You are telling Mr. Lane not to believe Greek manuscripts that are centuries older than the English AV!!!!! John Bunyan did not go up on a mountain and receive the AV from God!!! It was translated by men, using the Textus Receptus (an edition of Greek manuscripts made in ca. 15th Century). The AV or, rather, KJV translators stated that their objective was to make a good TRANSLATION better, i.e., Bishops, Geneva, Matthew's, et. al.
Even worse, what are poor people to do who read other languages? What must we do? For example, take Chinese. Should we translate the Greek into Chinese or should we translate the AV's English into Chinese? This is madness.
Hi Lane!
reginaDexant 1 year ago
Great video!
summa1129 1 year ago
"How Does Your Church Measure Success?"
My Church is successful when God's Word (the Bible) is taught in its truth and purity, regardless of numbers on Sunday morning....
shawno66 1 year ago
Where is this video from? What video series is this?
journey2lose 2 years ago
how do you respond to "the problem of hell" which is, why would a just and mercifull god create such a place as hell. and do you believe in an empty, void hell or a fiery lke being prodded and standing next to ghandi
arachnophile01 2 years ago
hell does exist in the spirt realm.
IF you like cookies you will buy cookies
jea740 2 years ago
Good example of not thinking out the implications of the terms used. You describe God as 'just', which directly implies condemnation. The point of the video is the attempt by many to avoid this uncomfortable thought.
The mercy of God, in being born on Earth and suffering on a cross to save us, cannot be doubted.
The main point, though, is that God's justice really *is* just, which is more than India received from Gandhi and his dynasty.
curvalecce 2 years ago
i went to his church today..it's an hour away from my house. I've been praying for a church for a few mths now an God led me there..even though it's that far I'm going to commit myself to going there
Angelina198622 2 years ago
I wish I was closer to Boynton Beach. I'd go there myself.
LaneCh 2 years ago
wow...Amazing ...
sammyfuzzylove 3 years ago
Check out lawdestroyer's theological comments on this video: "Critical Analysis of Way of the Master's Evolution".
gtrjunky 3 years ago
Oh, my. Thanks for letting me know. Mr. "lawdestroyer" is now blocked. I have no interest in even having the possibility of wasting time to read comments like that to see if I should approve them or not. Take care.
LaneCh 3 years ago
I don't know how you get the fact that he preached more about hell?
it seems he talked more about the kingdom to me.
lawdestroyer 3 years ago
Jesus talked more about hell than anyone else in the Bible. Get all the verses that talk about hell together. Jesus's remarks on them will be far more in number than the rest of the Bible.
LaneCh 3 years ago
the word "hell" appears 54 times in the kjv total.
heaven appears over 300 times in just the nt.
lawdestroyer 3 years ago
So are we talking about the entire Bible now or just Jesus? In your first comment, you referred to Jesus; in your second you're talking all of Scripture.
LaneCh 3 years ago
Jesus talked of hell only on a few occasions,
parable of Lazurus, the context of adultery to cast out ones eye,and separating the wheat from the tares. where he talked of heaven far exceeds these occasions
lawdestroyer 3 years ago
Um...
Times Jesus mentions the word "hell":
Matthew 5 - 3 times; Matthew 10; Matthew 11; Matthew 16; Matthew 18; Matthew 23 - 2 times; Mark 9 - 3 times; Luke 10; Luke 12; Luke 16; Rev 1. That's more than "a few occasions".
LaneCh 3 years ago
now how many times does he mention heaven now in rev 1 what is the context of hell?
he has the keys of hell. heaven is mentioned 270 times in the new testement.
and again how many times is hell the subject in two gospels telling the same event??
lawdestroyer 3 years ago
I think the real issue here is that since He has mentioned it at least one time, isn't that enough? In other words, how many times does He have to say it in order for it to be something we should fear God killing us and throwing us into? (Matt 10:28) Do you hold that if the tally for how many times He used the word "Heaven" is more than the number of times He said "Hell" that the doctrine of hell could be dismissed? What point are you trying to make with your argumentation?
LaneCh 3 years ago
my point is 6:30 in the video "Christ spoke more about hell than he did heaven?
now we see parables of heaven, yes there is mention of hell but what was Jesus emphasis?
Heaven. if we hold the point of view that we just escape hell,than aren't we taking away the real meaning of fellowship? or the gospel message?
the bottom line is we do not escape hell but have a place made for us in the kingdom.if we only escaped hell why would we not just remain in the grave forever?
lawdestroyer 3 years ago
What does that point have to do with how many times Jesus said a particular word?
LaneCh 3 years ago
jesus talked much about hell!! 4 times alone in matthew chapter 7.
educatedthug15 2 years ago
The sad thing is, per Heb 6, many of these people that "taste" and never really believe and then apostate can NEVER be saved after that.
Idiopathogen 4 years ago
Numbers do not glorify God. Quantity is not His game.
daafith 4 years ago
"You take your worldly wisdom and go your way, return to the library with the dusty scholars.
I'll go mine with God and my AV: believing that the Bible I got saved by is 100% true and without error - and yes, inspired in English. " <-- You may go your own way, but you're going away with your ignorance.
LaneCh 4 years ago
If numbers do not glorify God, what is the verse which counters that in reference to the bible?
Ps:this is not a challenge, I just want to learn more about the truth.
chickenboy2006 4 years ago
I wouldn't use the term "counter" that because the Bible as a whole affirms that God is not about the numbers as in Luke 15:8-10 where He says, "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? ...
LaneCh 4 years ago
"When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!' "In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." ...
LaneCh 4 years ago
I believe you may be referring to Acts 2:41, though, where it states "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day." However, later in the same book, Luke states, "And as many as were ORDAINED unto eternal life believed." (Luke 13:48 - Emphasis mine.) which proves God isn't interested in some random plan of getting as many decisions that say Jesus is my Savior as possible. He has a set purpose.
LaneCh 4 years ago
I agree. It's just like what Paul Washer said when he quoted Bill Graham in which Bill wished that he would rather see 5% of true repentance among Christians than just majority of self-proclaiming Christians
chickenboy2006 4 years ago
Lukewarm Christians can still be saved, but the Calvinist speaker believes evidence is required: a works based theory.
The truth is only thing need for salvation is a sorry sinner who trusts Jesus Christ alone to save his soul from hell (John 1:12-13).
He even uses modern Bible perversions - no wonder he's confused. Currupt Bibles is the real reason why the modern church is in the mess its in.
random331 4 years ago
Do you believe in using the KJV only?
LaneCh 4 years ago
To "use" a Bible is not the same as "believe the scriptures."
There are no "original manuscripts" so where are the scriptures?
The modern apostate phenomena began by replacing the authoritative AV with versions and "scholars" correcting the Bible's words.
That's why the modern Laodicean church is in a mess: NO FINAL AUTHORITY - Only opinions.
I believe in believing the AV exactly: the definitive Bible God gave us to read - God's words in English.
random331 4 years ago
What was the "perfect word" before 1611's AV?
LaneCh 4 years ago
If you don't believe the bible now, don't bother looking for it then.
Do us a favour, will ya? Don't be a hypocrite and a liar and tell anybody you actually believe the Bible is inerrant - when the truth is you'd just be blowing gas about something you never actually read in all your life.
random331 4 years ago
I believe the Bible to be theopneustos (God-breathed) [2Tim 3:16]. I don't believe that the AV is the ONLY translation of Greek text that is theopneustos. For example, the Greek word apistos means unbeliever; infidel.
(cont on next post...)
LaneCh 4 years ago
In 2Cor 6:14, the 1611 AV says, "Be ye not unequally yolked together with UNBELIVERS..." The 1599 Geneva says, "Be not unequally yolked with the INFIDELS..." Where is there a difference in the defitions of the two?
Again, the question, what was the "perfect word" before 1611's AV?
LaneCh 4 years ago
Did you read the original letter Paul wrote to Timothy?
So you can't be 100% certain that Gk word was even used.
Nor can your proposed definition be certain: GK-English dictionaries did not exist at that time.
Nor is any dictionary the judge of the Bible.
So your chasing your tail, friend. Either you have a Bible you believe today is perfect, or you don't.
Deut 5 doesn't match Ex 20 or Rom 13 exactly - but they're all God's words.
random331 4 years ago
"Did you read the original letter Paul wrote to Timothy?
So you can't be 100% certain that Gk word was even used." <-- So are you saing that if we don't have the original letter that we can't be sure of the authenticity of the words used? Even though I don't agree with that, would not that contradict your own assertion that the AV 1611 is inerrant if that were true?
(cont on next post...)
LaneCh 4 years ago
Surely you don't believe that the AV 1611 was the divinely inspired Word of God and not a translation of the original Kione-Greek text. Where you do think Erasmus of Rotterdam, the translator of the text used in the KJV from Greek to English, got the text he translated?
Again, the question, what was the "perfect word" before 1611's AV?
LaneCh 4 years ago
The perfect word is the AV - show me anything and I'll judge it by that.
You take your worldly wisdom and go your way, return to the library with the dusty scholars.
I'll go mine with God and my AV: believing that the Bible I got saved by is 100% true and without error - and yes, inspired in English.
Bye for good.
random331 4 years ago
"The perfect word is the AV - show me anything and I'll judge it by that." <-- The AV is a TRANSLATION. You can judge it by that, but don't think because a TRANSLATION uses another word WITH THE SAME MEANING as the original Greek word that it is somehow corrupt.
(cont on next post...)
LaneCh 4 years ago
Erasmus had the argument presented to him that he shouldn't TRANSLATE the Vulgate to English because it had been "preserved by God for over 1100 years." Why would the mentality that he went against to translate the AV be alright for you to make today in defense of it?
(cont on next post...)
LaneCh 4 years ago
The interesting thing is how KJV-Onlyists must prove inspiration of the KJV by militating against inspiration of the Greek text. They have arguments based on tradition and half truth. Though the KJV is an accurate translation, I can't agree with them because I believe too strongly in the doctrine of inspiration and that the Greek text of the Scriptures must be referred to because it was inspired of God. They are not able to get the principle of translation and they are left with less precision.
Studier101 3 years ago
I agree 100%.
LaneCh 3 years ago
You don't agree?!
If you never saw the original manuscript (the autograph) or an ancient dictionary, then how in the world can you assert the fanciful notions that you are 100% CERTAIN that that any particular word was used or what it exactly meant in English?
If you say, "I have faith" - well in what? Man or God?
I have faith that God gave us a Bible in English, you have faith that scholars can give you "reasonably reliable" meanings.
random331 4 years ago
Nay, you are logically inconsistent. You are telling Mr. Lane not to believe Greek manuscripts that are centuries older than the English AV!!!!! John Bunyan did not go up on a mountain and receive the AV from God!!! It was translated by men, using the Textus Receptus (an edition of Greek manuscripts made in ca. 15th Century). The AV or, rather, KJV translators stated that their objective was to make a good TRANSLATION better, i.e., Bishops, Geneva, Matthew's, et. al.
Studier101 3 years ago
Even worse, what are poor people to do who read other languages? What must we do? For example, take Chinese. Should we translate the Greek into Chinese or should we translate the AV's English into Chinese? This is madness.
Studier101 3 years ago
Have you ever seen an original manuscript of the KJV?
Studier101 3 years ago
Excellent video
johnquik 4 years ago
Powerful truth...
Blaze25z 4 years ago