Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is baptism necessary for salvation? | Acts 10:48 | Hank | 53948 | ||
Grace and Truth, what you have posted, sir or madam, is an outright and outrageous lie! Never in my life, on this forum or off it, have I EVER said that Scripture is not inspired. If you can't win your arguments by reason and truthfulness, please don't resort to attacking fellow forum users with the ugliness and blackness of pure falsehood. You have tripped the line; you are in clear violation of Lockman's standards and you are in serious jeopordy of losing your privilege to continue as a user of this forum. Guard your words. Guard them very carefully. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Is baptism necessary for salvation? | Acts 10:48 | Grace and Truth | 53951 | ||
You say never in your life, but you agreed with Tim Moran on this point about Mark 16:9-20! | ||||||
3 | Is baptism necessary for salvation? | Acts 10:48 | Morant61 | 53963 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! Since my name was brought into this discussion, I might as well clarify what it is that I actually believe! :-) I believe in the Innerrant, Plenary, and Confluent Inspiration of the original autographs of Scripture. 1) Innerrant: Without error in anything that it teaches. 2) Plenary: That every word of Scripture is inspired. 3) Confluent: That Scripture is a product of both Divine and Human will in the sense that God inspired the authors in such a way that their unique personalities shine through what they wrote. The question about Mk. 16:9-20 is whether or not it is Scripture - i.e. - was it in the original autographs or not? I have presented the evidence which demonstrates that it was not in the oldest manuscripts. It is only one of four various endings to Mark. So, which ending is the "real" ending? How does one decide? Who gets to decide? In my view, the long ending of Mark is not original; hence, it is not Scripture. So, I do believe in the inspiration of Scripture and so does Hank! The problem we have with Mark 16:16 is twofold: 1) It probably is not original. 2) And, it has been misinterpreted anyway! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Would they have been excluded? | Acts 10:48 | In the Andes | 53973 | ||
Wait a minute. Of the 4000 plus grk manuscripts of which 600 plus contain Mark, and only 2 of those DO NOT contain Mk 16:9-20, you believe it's not original? Wow, what lengths man will go to when he wants to prove healing and tongues has passed away. Question. Would those verses have ever been called into question if they had excluded "they shall speak with tongues and lay hands on the sick"? |
||||||
5 | Would they have been excluded? | Acts 10:48 | Searcher56 | 53975 | ||
Scripture ... Mark 16:17-18 ... You forgot the rest of the passage. Why do you focus on two? Is it possible this was a temporal or limited promise? Do you want ne to list some of these? Searcher |
||||||