Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: NYP Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | joe and jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150357 | ||
Neither will "Hellboy." I'm glad he mentioned it. I never pay attention to names. |
||||||
2 | Does God have wings? | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150359 | ||
A M E N ! ! "any teaching not supported by Scripture is nothing but a lie." Thank you dear soul. |
||||||
3 | Does God have wings? | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150369 | ||
No doubt, dear brother you can take pleasure in being reminded that it has already been foretold that many would rather conform to the ways of the world than go against the tide. He knew you would be a "tide breaker" before you ever got your feet wet. |
||||||
4 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150374 | ||
No doubt, many would consider the "meanest" as the one which is closest to truth. Yet I can see nothing "mean" in the truth He has given us. Perhaps it is because I am getting a bit bleary eyed, (It is after midnight here in the sunshine state,) but I cannot say that I quite understand your quote, "*"Meanest" here is used in the following sense of the word "mean" -- lacking distinction or eminence : HUMBLE" |
||||||
5 | Bible versions which one is best | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150469 | ||
Personally. I do not believe there is a perfect version, yet there is little doubt that there are those which are farther from perfect than others. Even those farther from perfect translations have their use. I do believe that God has preserved the essence of His word through the ages, and that the "less than adequate" translations will go by the way. I think it says something to this affect in scripture too, but I can't find it at the moment. |
||||||
6 | What do ( ) mean in NASB? | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150472 | ||
LOL... Well put Hank. The more I read your posts, the more I think of you. | ||||||
7 | What do ( ) mean in NASB? | Bible general Archive 2 | NYP | 150474 | ||
What, may I ask, is a "Berean"? It ain't in my dictionary. | ||||||
8 | explain the death of Joab | 1 Kin 2:5 | NYP | 150571 | ||
It appears that this person is attempting to start something akin to a Bible class. | ||||||
9 | Can a save person mis heaven? | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152287 | ||
As much as I would like to believe it"once saved, always saved," these passages do not negate those I have already posted. Either way, (by His Grace,) I personally intend to persevere to the very end, knowing all along that there are misteries which no one fully understands, and leaning heavily on Proverbs 3:5-6 in such cases, rather than becoming discourraged. | ||||||
10 | big sins / litle sins | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152289 | ||
Hank, do you think that the death this passage refers to is "everlasting damnation," or simply "death, (the loss of life?" I can't help but to think of Moses and his sin, which brought what some might consider, a pre mature death. No doubt, sin is sin, and without the blood of the Lamb, the wage thereof is death in eternal damnation, but then, there is a sin unto death, and likewise, those which are not unto death. It seems like I have already answered my question, but I have only gotten myself a little dizzy. |
||||||
11 | Who will be saved? Few, Many or All? | Rom 3:23 | NYP | 152293 | ||
Considering the fact that Adam was already dead and gone, I will have to take issue with your statement that" He died for only ONE PERSON, that being the person of Adam." Is it not true that "Christ 'tasted death for EVERY MAN," not just Adam? "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."Joh 3:16 Now, please tell me how Adam could have believed in Him. |
||||||
12 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151041 | ||
“Is 'tongue' as it is used in these verses different in meaning from 'tongues' in Acts 2:4: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."? –Hank” I am not sure that I fully understand your question Hank. I do believe it is one and the same. 1 Co 14:4 refers to an individual, and thus uses the singular, in reference to the gift of tongue"s." In the very next verse, it is used in the plural form. Act 2:3 states; “ And there appeared unto them cloven “tongues” [plural] like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. [The plural now becomes singular.] I also believe that scripture teaches that though something, ie, tongues, is right; It is not right, when it becomes a stumbling block to another. |
||||||
13 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151042 | ||
Undoubtedly, there were those who were skeptical, both amoungst the believers and non believers, but the Apostles, in whom the Holy Spirit had manifest Himself in v4, no doubt preached with the power afore promised. The multitudes were confused, not because they heard them speaking in indiscernible tongues, but because each heard these Galileans speaking in their own tongue, (language). I would think that the mockers were the only ones who may have heard them speaking in indiscernible tongues. Keep in mind; everyone in this portion of scripture, is not speaking in "tongues;" Only the Apostles. Doc. You have been in this forum for a l o n g time. Do you put me to the test with this question? |
||||||
14 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151044 | ||
In re-reading my post, I think I understand your question, Doc. I am sure we all know what Paul says concerning tongues, and the interpretation thereof. I would think that in the case of Acts chapter 2, the Holy Spirit itself was the supernatural interpretor, at least for those who sincerely desired the truth. As to those who did not fit into this category, I believe that they were undoubtedly the mockers. |
||||||
15 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151143 | ||
Dearest Brother Doc As to those “perplexed, asking one another "Whatever could this mean," I made no allusion to them being the mockers. Is it not apparent that the Spirit was doing the translating, (or, at the very least, responsible,) in that each individual heard the Apostles “Galileans,” speaking [in their own language,] “as the Spirit gave them utterance?” Immediately prior to the tongues of fire setting on each of them in the later verses of chapter 1, Matthias had just been numbered among the eleven "apostles." Considering the context of the passage, I think my assertions are both reasonable deductions. Do you not agree? Not to get off the subject, but this path of discussion puts me in mind of a statement I heard a preacher make today, concerning Romans 4:4. It seems that he interprets the verse as meaning that (the sinner who attempts justification by works, makes himself more and more guilty of sin by doing more works.) I do not see this passage as making such a statement. I can see how one might take it as stated above, if they are guilty of the “hunt and peck method” of reading scripture, but the meaning appears self explanatory when this particular verse is taken in context with those surrounding it. Forgive my ignorance, but I am just now learning that, though we read the same words, there are many who see them differently than I. This mystifies me. I have always felt that I read what I read and interpreted what I read as meaning what it said. The more I write on these boards, the more I realize “though I feel I have a very good grasp on it,” just how deficient the English language is. |
||||||
16 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151146 | ||
Brother Hank I do not believe that scripture gives any foundation on which one could base a belief that there is any difference other than the singular and plural concerning what you speak. If you feel there is, please share it. |
||||||
17 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151157 | ||
I would like to take some time to ponder your questions. However, I would like to address the later part now. Please forgive me, but I have never been good at memorizing or remembering where a particular passage is. Thank God for e-Sword. I have to look up each passage as I remember it. Sometimes this is very hard, since I have used the NIV for many years and e-Sword does not support it yet. Personally, when I think of the word "tongues," be it plural or other wise, I think of it as "unknown tongues." A language no man can understand without the gift of interpretation. Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 1 Co 12 specifically spells out the fact that “speaking in different kinds of tongues” is a gift, as is the interpretation of tongues, as well as at least 7 other gifts of the Spirit. Different kinds of tongues, I believe refers occasionally, but not specifically to known languages, but what to man, is an unknown tongue or language. I am pleased to note that though I have never studied this particular topic in this commentary, I just discovered that VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES spells out my thoughts in nearly my own words. III. Recorded Facts in the New Testament. (1.) The first recorded bestowment of the gift was at Pentecost (Acts 2). The question arises whether the speakers were miraculously endowed to speak with other tongues, or whether the Spirit interpreted the apostle's words to each in his own tongue. Probably the latter was the case, since there is no subsequent notice of the apostles preaching in foreign tongues; there is no allusion to foreign tongues by Peter, nor by Joel, whom he quotes. This fact, moreover, would go to explain the opposite effects on the hearers. (2.) Under the power of the Spirit, the company addressed by Peter in the house of Cornelius at Caesarea spake with tongues. Act_10:44-46. (3.) Certain disciples at Ephesus, who received the Holy Spirit in the laying on of Paul's hands, spake with tongues and prophesied, Act_19:6. IV. Meaning of the Term “Tongue.” The various explanations are: the tongue alone, inarticulately: rare, provincial, poetic, or archaic words: language or dialect. The last is the correct definition. It does not necessarily mean any of the known languages of men, but may mean the speaker's own tongue, shaped in a peculiar manner by the Spirit's influence; or an entirely new spiritual language. Your Brother In Christ NYP |
||||||
18 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151161 | ||
I believe they were speaking, by the Spirit, in a language (tongue) which all understood in their own language. Actually I believe it was fire. I picture tongues of fire licking upwardly. I think Jesus mentioned something along this line foretelling what they were to experience, but the passage eludes me currently. Your Brother In Christ. NYP |
||||||
19 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151270 | ||
Brother Doc, I didn't say that the non believers were interpreting. I said that the Holy Spirit was interpreting. After all, tongues are a sign to the non believer. 1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not... How could they be a sign if they were not understood? I feel that part of the sign in this particular case was the fact that the Galileans, Apostles were understood in a language (tongue) which the hearers knew they did not speak. There is no evidence that I know of to suggest that the Apostles spoke any language other than Hebrew, or perhaps Greek. And besides "everyone heard them in their own language. Imagine an Italian and an American, both who speek only their native tongue, understanding what is being said by a Russian who speaks only his native language. |
||||||
20 | Tongues, madness or sign for unbeliever | 1 Cor 14:22 | NYP | 151279 | ||
That is one that I don't have Hank, but I do believe that note "almost" hits the nail on the head. No doubt tongues could, at times be "Known languages," but I believe that in the book of Acts, they were "ecstatic utterances." How else could one have understood in his own language what was being spoken by one who did not speak his language, while at the same time, another who spoke a third language understood what was being spoken as well? No doubt there are rational explinations for much of what is spiritual, but my question is, "why must the fact that there is the supernatural, which has no natural or rational explination, constantly be denied?" |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |