rhutchin

We have a somewhat similar situation in Matthew that sheds light on Judges.

Matthew 13
54 ...when [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works?
55 “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?...
57 So they were offended at Him....
58 Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

In reality, Christ can do miracles (works) if He wants regardless of what people believe so unbelief is not a constraining force. The point here is that God works in concert with people. Because of unbelief, the people in the town did not prevail upon Jesus to heal their sicknesses. Had they done so, Jesus would have healed them.

What has happened in Judges? The Lord went out to battle with Judah and they drove out the inhabitants of the land. On seeing the iron chariots, the men of Judah, in fear and unbelief, refused to go out to battle. God then did nothing so that Judah could have the reward of their unbelief.

The iron chariots did not prevent God working with Judah to drive out the inhabitants of the valley. Unbelief did.

rhutchin

How about explaining why you think this is a contradiction. What in the passage contradicts something else in the Bible? Can you develop an argument to support your contention here (assuming that you actually agree with aa5874).

rhutchin

OK. None of the translations claim that the person is condemned to hell. They all fudge. What is the difference between "is in danger" and "is guilty" or "lies under the guilt." Different ways of saying that the person has a problem that, if not resolved, means they are in trouble.

The person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit is "guilty of an eternal sin." So what is an "eternal sin"? The person who steals is guilty of a sin with eternal consequences. In each case, the person is subject to judgment and being excluded from heaven for eternity.

The key to this verse is an understanding of the term, "blaspheme." Within the context of the passage, Jesus said this because the Pharisees claimed that Jesus cast out devils by the power of Satan and not by the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy is attributing to Satan that which should be attributed to God.

It is true that the person who blasphemes the Holy spirit is guilty of an eternal sin. It is also true that people who sins can receive forgiveness. If Joan of Bark is attributing to Satan (or to evolution, let's say) the works of God, then she is guilty of an eternal sin, one that will exclude her from heaven for eternity. However, Joan of Bark can, at any time, change her position and attribute to God the works that He has done. She can seek forgiveness for her sin and God will forgive her.

All sin has consequences; the consequences of sin are eternal; all sin can be forgiven. A person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit does not have forgiveness of that sin and cannot be forgiven that sin until they stop their blaspheming and seek forgiveness. Joan of Bark has the opportunity to do that.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: There is little doubt that no skeptic will be able to convince you that the Bible contains any contradictions, and there is little doubt that you will be able to convince skeptics that the Bible does not contain any errors. Therefore, instead of needlessly wasting time, let's discuss some more logical alternatives. First of all, he who asserts first must defend first. That is the way that it works in court trials. Skeptics are not obligated to reasonably prove that the Bible contains contradictions. The Bible contain original assertions from cover to cover, the vast majority of which must be believed entirely by faith or rejected. It is you who need to reasonably prove that God inspired and preserved the Bible, but you always conveniently refuse to do that. That ensures that you will never convince anyone at this foum of anything.

By the way, skeptics at the Existence of God Forum are demolishing some of your absurd claims about Pascal's Wager. In addition, regarding your ridiculous thread about animals eating meat that was transferred to the Evolution/Creation Forum, I requested that a moderator at that forum transfer it to the General Religous Discussions Forum. I assume that you are afraid to participate in either one of those threads, even though you recently started one of them, and even though you are a big fan of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is one of the most ridiculous arguments that you have ever come up with. No man can love a God just because he believes that God is able to send him to hell. Pascal was a nut, as is easily proven by his absurd claim that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven.

rhutchin

I doubt that they would either. However, that is because, like you, they never seem able to explain why a contradiction exists. If you could explain why you think two verses are contradictory, then you could, at least establish, a position that would have to be addressed. You maintain that contradictions exist but you are unable to explain any of the alleged contradictions. What is it that you think I should I convinced to reject when you present me no reason or argument to reject anything??

rhutchin

The Bible stands on its own. I can quote Paul or Peter who wrote that God inspired them and others to write Scripture. They wrote that which God inspired them to write, so a person is to be convinced by the Bible alone and not by any clever arguments of men. My desire is that you understand clearly that which the Bible says so that you can decide what you want to do with it. I cannot tell you what you should believe but I can tell you what I think you ought to believe. The final decision is yours.

punk77

As makerowner points out (thanks) it is in the KJV. As all the people that I usually debate/argue with where I live use the KJV (and only the KJV) as their standard that is what I usually quote from unless I know beforehand that another bible version is being used.

makerowner

You should note that the KJV is one of the least accurate translations out there these days. I prefer the RSV, but the NIV is also good AFAIK.

makerowner

The Qur'aan says that it was written directly by God, so I guess it's more valuable than Peter or Paul, who were just inspired by God. Right?

punk77

rhutchin:
The person who blasphemes the Holy Spirit is "guilty of an eternal sin." So what is an "eternal sin"? The person who steals is guilty of a sin with eternal consequences.

You are switching terms here from sins to consequences. Sins can be eternal but consequences cannot or else you would not be able to mitigate the consequences of your sins by repenting. You are also switching the sin from blasphemy to stealing for which there is no textual reason.

rhutchin:
The key to this verse is an understanding of the term, "blaspheme."

I would say that you are wrong. The key to this verse is to understand what the verse before said:

Mark 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme.

This tells you that all sins/blasphemies can be forgiven. The following verse then tells you the exception:

Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Nothing there about just repenting and getting away with it. The following verse then tells you what the blasphemy consists of:

Mark 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Nothing there about just repenting and getting away with it.

So a more logical reading of it is Jesus warning the Pharisees that they will not get forgiveness for blaspheming him/the Holy Ghost. If '...is in danger of...' means that they could be forgiven then Jesus is wrong when seconds before he is meant to have said '...hath never forgiveness...'.

If you just quote v29 out of context then your reading makes sense. If you quote it along with the other verses then a whole different meaning is obvious.