> General Discussions

I think I found a small point where Ray was wrong

(1/2) > >>

Nick Reading:
...And I've come to learn that usually means there's something I'm not seeing. I'm in the facebook group (where I haven't always been as polite as I should be) and I posted in here in 2013 under a very similar screen name and I made the most recent post before this one under the same screen name I'm using now. When I ask questions, I'm often told to read the entire lake of fire series and I finally got through the whole thing not long ago. I'm also told to read the emails section. I was doing that, and I came across this:

https://bible-truths.com/email14.htm#man
"Zachariah was JUST before God" (Luke 1:5).

Vs.

"NOT ONE is JUST" (Rom. 3:10).

Again, Zachariah was "just" FROM MAN'S point of view. When comparing him with all the other corrupt priests, Zachariah certainly appeared to be JUST. But from God's ABSOLUTE point of view, not even Zachariah was just.

I looked up Luke 1:5-6 and here's what is says:
In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

Ray says that they were only just from man's point of view, but the scripture says they were righteous "in the sight of God". I'm not bringing this up as a "gotcha" (although, I would probably think I was pretty hot stuff if I managed to identify a place where Ray was wrong) but, like I said at the beginning of this post, it usually means there's something I'm not seeing. So what is it?

Dennis Vogel:
Luke 1:6 - Word translated "Just" and or "Righteous" Strong's:

dik'-ah-yos
From G1349;
equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively): - just, meet, right (-eous).

Nick Reading:
Respectfully, that doesn't answer my question. The text that I put in bold and underlined says that Zacheriah and his wife were just (righteous, etc.) Before God. Ray says they were only so in the eyes of men. I get that contrasting Luke 1:5 against Rom. 3:10 is meant to show that one is relative and the other absolute, but with that in mind, they still would have been just (relatively) in the sight of God, not only men.

Dennis Vogel:
Luke 1:5 and Romans 3:10 use the exact same word which can mean absolute or relative. So I don't see a problem.

Nick Reading:
My problem is not with absolute or relative, but rather perspective. The text says that these two people were righteous in the eyes of God, Ray says that they were righteous merely in the eyes of men.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page