Mr_Anony:
Of course it is in reference to knowledge. The question is knowledge of who?

On that perfect day, we shall see God and everything will be revealed.

I can give you a few more verses if you like

Consider: Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.

Compare with 1John3:2-3
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Also see Revelations 22:3-5
And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.

i am not saying that the bible did not say that people shall see God.

But that passage in corinthians says that knowledge will cease when that which is complete arrives.

That you feel the seeing face to face that is mention there means seeing God that is why you completed it to mean that when we see God that we will come to accurate knowledge.

I say it is not necessary for you to put God there.

It is wrong to hastily complete/fixe God there.

1. Now, if it is seeing God that we will come to know knowledge of God how then will people be save by the gospel that is being preached since the knowledge is not yet till we see God?

Note this:

From your putting God into that place you mean that this will not be possible:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
...............

Because there will be no knowledge until we see see God.

Meaning that the preaching today is useless since we have not see God yet and no knowledge yet.

2. Of what use was the gift of the holy spirit if the complete knowledge cannot come from it?

Was the holy spirit not meant to lead christians into all knowledge?

3. Note:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, completely furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
................

Has the purpose ^^^ of the scriptures not been defeated with you putting God into that place?

4. How can this statement work since we have not seen God yet as to come to accurate knowledge?:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " (John 17:3).
..................
This statement ^^ of Jesus is also a lie by what you said.

5. How can this be:

"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding,
"If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." (Proverbs 2:1-5)
............
My friend, am afraid, i dont agree with you.
Peace

wiegraf:

Don't group us together, unlike you we're not sheeple. In this particular case though, anyone with free will capable of simple reason would consider you wrong. And as always, dishonest.

Well, opinion has little to do with it, fact is you're conspicuously wrong, in any language including swahili. Except maybe in anony. You make this $hit up as you go, shoot yourself in the foot, then backtrack fairly comically. Observe this buffoonry for instance












You know this translates to god cannot be comprehensible, yes?



That's not what incomprehensible means.
You already agree with kay, so you set about redefining the word, blindly, and in a very honest way. (Spot the sarcasm)



This is correct





Incomprehensible? In what language? In anony?

......

So then after the mix up is cleared, you've redefined the term to mean something that the opposite of the word (we'll get to that), we proceed to



My friend, you didn't give any word that describes what you are talking about. You yourself had no problem using the word incomprehensible, then of course duly set about redefining it. So, considering he was not wrong unlike you, why make it sound like he was in the wrong?




This description amounts to comprehensible, just difficult to understand. Comprehensible is the very opposite of incomprehensible, you know that, yes?

And I doubt most xtians agree with your definition as it relates to your god, but we can ignore that, for now....



So, you agree god is not incomprehensible, perfect. You guys aren't in contention, yes? In essence all the above, as kay was stating his points, you agreed with him yet never explicitly said so?


And then this:





What the 4k are you not in contention over then?
I mean WTF
4k
Do you even understand what your position is?

Kay is misrepresenting you, do you know the meaning of the word? You continued to use the word yourself..

Lol, Interesting exercise at semantics there.

We were not arguing over words and meanings. We were arguing over whether God can be known or whether He is completely unknowable. I believe my stance is quite clear on that however it has been interesting watching y'all try to force words into my mouth.

Logicboy03:



Logic and theology do not mostly meet each other at an intersect


1) You are admitting that you are arguing for God with half baked knowledge

2)You are also implying that we will get a knowledge beyond our senses before we die?

This is another poor attempt at misrepresentation.

truthislight:

i am not saying that the bible did not say that people shall see God.

But that passage in corinthians says that knowledge will cease when that which is complete arrives.

That you feel the seeing face to face that is mention there means seeing God that is why you completed it to mean that when we see God that we will come to accurate knowledge.

I say it is not necessary for you to put God there.

It is wrong to hastily complete/fixe God there.

1. Now, if it is seeing God that we will come to know knowledge of God how then will people be save by the gospel that is being preached since the knowledge is not yet till we see God?

Note this:

From your putting God into that place you mean that this will not be possible:

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
...............

Because there will be no knowledge until we see see God.

Meaning that the preaching today is useless since we have not see God yet and no knowledge yet.

2. Of what use was the gift of the holy spirit if the complete knowledge cannot come from it?

Was the holy spirit not meant to lead christians into all knowledge?

3. Note:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, completely furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
................

Has the purpose ^^^ of the scriptures not been defeated with you putting God into that place?

4. How can this statement work since we have not seen God yet as to come to accurate knowledge?:

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " (John 17:3).
..................
This statement ^^ of Jesus is also a lie by what you said.

5. How can this be:

"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding,
"If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God." (Proverbs 2:1-5)
............
My friend, am afraid, i dont agree with you.
Peace

My friend, I don't know what you are worked up about. I didn't put God there, I read from my bible telling me that when we meet God it will all be made clear. You asked for the translation and I provided it. Why now are you making it seem as if it was my invention? I did not write the bible, I only quoted it. If you have a problem, take it up with the translators and not me.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Interesting exercise at semantics there.

We were not arguing over words and meanings. We were arguing over whether God can be known or whether He is completely unknowable. I believe my stance is quite clear on that however it has been interesting watching y'all try to force words into my mouth.

You're not arguing semantics? Don't be an eediot. Your position is clear and well thought out then? So why this m.oronic question?

Mr_Anony:
Is that what Kay said? Please quote

Mr_Anony:
My friend, remember that "incomprehensible" was not a word I used but one you chose. I pointed out that a more accurate description of knowing God is that we have partial knowledge of Him as human beings. I have also shown you from the bible that God will make everything clear to us in the end.

So I really don't see your contention here. You have defined God inaccurately and you are insisting that God must fit your definition even after I have shown you that your definition does not accurately depict God.

that statement of having partial knowledge was a reference to an individual apostle as they were given just a part of what is to be and that is why it took not just one apostle to write the NT but many and this many were given a part of the knowledge to write.

But when you combine all their knowledge together you then have a complete package of what God has sent.

With that apostle peter can make this statement below:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you,
"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15,16)
..................

Yes, peter agrees that the knowledge that was "given" to apostle paul was difficult to understand.

And the one that was given to him peter was different from the one that was given to paul.

But we today in the bible have this knowledge that was given to the individual apostles in parts as the complete NT and the OT all in one package of God's dealing and aspects.

The bible says that the :
"things that were written afore times were written for our own understanding, that by reading them we might have hope"

yes, the "partial" is a reference to what was given to the individual apostles, but today we have the bible that contain all that was given to all the apostles in one place. = that which is complete.

And that is what people will use to :
"come to an accurate knowledge of truth as to be saved"
1timothy2:3,4
peac

wiegraf:

You're not arguing semantics? Don't be an eediot. Your position is clear and well thought out then? So why this m.oronic question?

Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

Perhaps if you lot were willing to start arguing properly instead of looking for words to twist we might actually have a fun discussion.


I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "idiot" and "moron" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I don't know what you are worked up about. I didn't put God there, I read from my bible telling me that when we meet God it will all be made clear. You asked for the translation and I provided it. Why now are you making it seem as if it was my invention? I did not write the bible, I only quoted it. If you have a problem, take it up with the translators and not me.

of all the translion in this world that is the only one that serves your aims/purpose.

The old manuscript did not put god there but you liked a translation that put God their.

Yes, the translation put god there and most others dont but you did loved the one that does.

Well, you and your translation are on your own.

What you are saying is not what i read from my own bible.

God has reveal himself to man through the bible.

God has reveal himself to man through his son Jesus christ.
Peace.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "idiot" and "moron" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

Perhaps if you lot were willing to start arguing properly instead of looking for words to twist we might actually have a fun discussion.

Good lord!


Anony, only you understands your position. Even Truthislight is trying to clarify your biblical position! Either you are spouting some illogical nonsense or everybody else is wrong.




Even at that, I will give you one last chance to clarify your position based on logic.


Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

truthislight:

of all the translion in this world that is the only one that serves you aims/purpose.

The old manuscript did not put god there but you liked a translation that put God their.

Yes, the translation put god there and most others dont but you did loved the one that does.

Well, you and your translation are on your own.

What you are saying is not what i read from my own bible.

God has reveal himself to man through the bible.

God has reveal himself to man through his son Jesus christ.
Peace.

Actually it isn't the only translation that says we will know God clearly as He knows us. Your allegation is untrue

We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! (MSG)

Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me. (GW)

At present, we are looking at a confused reflection in a mirror; then, we shall see face to face; now, I have only glimpses of knowledge; then, I shall recognize God as he has recognized me. (KNOX)

What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; then we shall see face-to-face. What I know now is only partial; then it will be complete—as complete as God's knowledge of me.(GNT)

Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. (NLT)

For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. (NET)



I am also not arguing that God has not revealed himself to us because He has through the person of Jesus Christ and furthermore teaches us of Himself through the Holy Spirit. All I am pointing at is that the verse talks about the last day when perfection will come and we will know Him face to face and clearly as He knows us. Until then, we know only in part.

I believe that all translations are there to make scripture clearer and easier for us to read and understand.

Logicboy03:



Good lord!


Anony, only you understands your position. Even Truthislight is trying to clarify your biblical position! Either you are spouting some illogical nonsense or everybody else is wrong.




Even at that, I will give you one last chance to clarify your position based on logic.


Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

How exactly do your premises lead to your conclusion?

Mr anony, you can't rationally deny that God is not also the Devil, and that God isn't good; since your knowledge struggles haplessly to grasp a bit of God, right?

In other words, there isn't any absolute truth you have about God.

Onto God's next attribute: Supernatural.

Basically means that in spite of God's character, God can act beyond his self. For example God despite being absolutely good and act evil. Hence an irrational attribute.

Truthislight, is this a conspiracy?

Kay 17: Mr anony, you can't rationally deny that God is not also the Devil, and that God isn't good; since your knowledge struggles haplessly to grasp a bit of God, right?

In other words, there isn't any absolute truth you have about God.

Wrong. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion

This is like saying that because a doctor does not know everything there is to know about medicine therefore he cannot tell the difference between tuberculosis and chicken pox. I'm afraid you have shown poor logic here.

Kay 17: Onto God's next attribute: Supernatural.

Basically means that in spite of God's character, God can act beyond his self. For example God despite being absolutely good and act evil. Hence an irrational attribute.

Can't make sense of this statement. How does supernatural mean acting out of character?

Mr_Anony:
How exactly do your premises lead to your conclusion?

Wow......nice dodge.


Dubious guy

Logicboy03:


Wow......nice dodge.


Dubious guy

I hope you realize that calling me dubious doesn't excuse you from explaining yourself more clearly.

Mr_Anony:
I hope you realize that calling me dubious doesn't excuse you from explaining yourself more clearly.

Lolz......only a liar would say that my statement is not clear;

Logicboy03:


Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

Perhaps if you lot were willing to start arguing properly instead of looking for words to twist we might actually have a fun discussion.


I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "idiot" and "moron" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

Heh heh, no, you are a m.oron. I tone down a bit while discussing with you because of a soft spot, doesn't mean you aren't a m.oron, or that I'm frustrated. I usually post like this when addressing m.orons, especially the b.igoted ones. Check my history if you doubt that, so it's nothing special. In your case, your silly claims to being logical are why you interest me atm.

This post, like the others, continues the trend. You spout pure nonsense and top that up with being dishonest. So you are not in contention with kay, but you aren't in agreement? Wtf is wrong with you you mo.ron? Do you even understand the basics?

Kay 17: Mr anony, my argument is very simple. God being incomprehensive means he is by his Nature impossible to understand. As a result can not come within human knowledge at any time. That's not the same with a subject that is not fully grasped. There is partial understanding at least.

Just as calculus is to the baby, God is to us. Simple.

incomprehensible: impossible or [/b] very difficult [b] to understand. I think the contention here is that while Kay17 uses the word incomprehensible to mean impossible to understand, anony uses it to mean difficult to understand.
And quite Frankly, I honestly do not see how God being difficult to understand Is a problem. Do we really need to know all there Is to know about God? A child, for instance may find a parent's way of handling a matter difficult to understand. When I was a child, the standard response I got when adults around me did something incomprehensible to me was: when you get older you will understand. And there are many things I did understand as I got older. Why do we deny God the right to tell us: I am like this and like that, but as for some other parts of me, when you get older I will show you?

Logicboy03:
Lolz......only a liar would say that my statement is not clear;

Of course, I didn't know your statement came fitted with a special understanding device which it remotely triggers in the reader's brain so that the reader has no choice but to understand it.

Kay 17: Onto God's next attribute: Supernatural.

Basically means that in spite of God's character, God can act beyond his self. For example God despite being absolutely good and act evil. Hence an irrational attribute.

To avoid another long debate on the meaning of words:
Supernatural: not of the natural world. Relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws.

Reyginus: Truthislight, is this a conspiracy?

Conspiracy to what end?

Clarify please.
Thanks.

wiegraf:

Heh heh, no, you are a m.oron. I tone down a bit while discussing with you because of a soft spot, doesn't mean you aren't a m.oron, or that I'm frustrated. I usually post like this when addressing m.orons, especially the b.igoted ones. Check my history if you doubt that, so it's nothing special. In your case, your silly claims to being logical are why you interest me atm.

This post, like the others, continues the trend. You spout pure nonsense and top that up with being dishonest. So you are not in contention with kay, but you aren't in agreement? Wtf is wrong with you you mo.ron? Do you even understand the basics?

Lol, interesting, as I always say, personal insults and name calling never made your point any more or less valid. Similarly the fact that something is beyond your understanding doesn't make it silly. Feel free to strangle your keyboard if if it helps you let off steam my friend.

truthislight:



Conspiracy to what end?

Clarify please.
Thanks.

I sense ad hominem. Your arguement will have been better in another thread. What do you think?

Mr_Anony:
Actually it isn't the only translation that says we will know God clearly as He knows us. Your allegation is untrue

We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! (MSG)

Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me. (GW)

At present, we are looking at a confused reflection in a mirror; then, we shall see face to face; now, I have only glimpses of knowledge; then, I shall recognize God as he has recognized me. (KNOX)

What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; then we shall see face-to-face. What I know now is only partial; then it will be complete—as complete as God's knowledge of me.(GNT)

Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. (NLT)

For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. (NET)



I am also not arguing that God has not revealed himself to us because He has through the person of Jesus Christ and furthermore teaches us of Himself through the Holy Spirit. All I am pointing at is that the verse talks about the last day when perfection will come and we will know Him face to face and clearly as He knows us. Until then, we know only in part.

I believe that all translations are there to make scripture clearer and easier for us to read and understand.

my brother Annony,

this below was the translation in question.

please compare the traslation you quoted up there with the one here below and see if they say the same thing:

Mr_Anony:
"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us.

"Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror.
But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes",

Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

[/quote]

this was the translation in question.

Mr_Anony:
"Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror.
But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes",

this ^^^ is the part that got me wandering and i cant accept that getting the knowledge of God depend on that ^^^ as it was presented.

will not.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, interesting, as I always say, personal insults and name calling never made your point any more or less valid. Similarly the fact that something is beyond your understanding doesn't make it silly. Feel free to strangle your keyboard if if it helps you let off steam my friend.

Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to shut up if you can't address the points, your great coherentness?

Beyond my understanding. That's some lovely brain washing you got there. Eediot

Mr_Anony:
Of course, I didn't know your statement came fitted with a special understanding device which it remotely triggers in the reader's brain so that the reader has no choice but to understand it.

Twice you have said that my statement isnt clear without showing how.


Everyone can see your true colours

Logicboy03:




Premise;

a) God is an omniscient, and objective moral law giver

b) Humans can not be objective because everything they know comes from a bias of human perception- the five sense and human reasoning.

Conclusion
c) Therefore humans can never know these aspects of God.

@mranony

For a doctor that has sufficient grasp of his field, it wouldn't apply.

Reyginus: I sense ad hominem. Your arguement will have been better in another thread. What do you think?

i dont understand you my friend.

Is it true that we cannot have knowledge unless we can see God?


"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).
............
Since we have not see God to arrived at knowledge how then do we get to be saved?

Is my pointing this out a crime to you?

wiegraf:

Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to shut up if you can't address the points, your great coherentness?

Beyond my understanding. That's some lovely brain washing you got there. Eediot

lolololol...........someone is getting really frustrated