Results 1 - 20 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Huron Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sacking of Jerusalem by Romans in view? | James 5:7 | Huron | 241998 | ||
Doc, While I don't think my observation about this text really changes anything in the big picture, I did enjoy kicking it around with you. I'll check out the Rev. text you mentioned in context. Regards, Huron |
||||||
2 | Sacking of Jerusalem by Romans in view? | James 5:7 | Huron | 241993 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. I knew that my question was a bit unusual, but there are reasons for my thinking the way I do about this text: James isn't consistent in his use of "Lord" in his letter. Sometimes it clearly means the Father, sometimes the Son, and some times it's ambiguous. Look at the similiar language James 5:7,8 and Matthew: so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door."Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matt 24:33,34) Jesus speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem - Remember the disciples asked him two questions at the beginning of this chapter in Matthew. Jesus predicted something it either never happened, or it happened and no one knew if we apply Paul's use of the language surrounding parousia to James discussion of it. I believe that we have to let James speak for James. Thanks for entertaining the thought. Huron |
||||||
3 | Not a Handbook | Rev 22:9 | Huron | 238566 | ||
That's great insight. While we might profit from using the Bible as a handbook, it's real purpose is to point us to Jesus so that we will trust in Him. | ||||||
4 | Why the NKJV over the NASB ? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 189792 | ||
The NASB has always been a bit of a "sholars" Bible. Well, maybe not quite, but it's been my experience that those who really use their Bible and are really concerned with real (not perceived) accuracy go with the NASB. The NASB does have it's quirks. Try to read from one aloud! It's clumsy. If you try to follow along with a group you will also find that word order is different from other translations. I like and use the NKJV also, but by following the majority text it is prone to many of the inaccuracies of the TR derived KJV. Getting back to your question, there is a concern about the newer translations being a "change" from the KJV. Secondly, I think that the NKJV is advertised more than the NASB. Huron |
||||||
5 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 166775 | ||
Thanks! I don't know if I agree with the "wooden" label or not. Even though I use the NASB every day, and have done all of my memory work from it, I have to admit that it leaves me tongue-tied when I read it out loud. For "publik" reading I love the sound of the KJV:) I'm sure that many of us on this site would agree that it is helpful to have several translations handy. KJV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NASBU, and NIV are all excellant translations. |
||||||
6 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 166722 | ||
Hank, That's a classic! Huron |
||||||
7 | Why so many Bibles? | Bible general Archive 3 | Huron | 166695 | ||
I really believe that the NASB, and the NASB updated version are the most accurate. When the shortcomings of the NASB are discussed, it usually regards the fact that the NASB may be difficult to read aloud due to the fact that it places the emphasis on accuracy rather than English word order. It has been said that the NASB is so accurate that you could reverse translate it back into the original Greek! The KJV, RSV, NKJV, and the NIV are also very good and have their following. The NIV may at times "interpret" rather than translate, which gives you a translation that tells you what the translators think the Greek "MEANS" rather than what it "SAYS." Usually though, the NIV translators were right on. The NIV is a very readable translation. The RSV has the flow of the KJV, but is easier to understand. It does have its detractors though, usually regarding the choice of the work young woman -vs- virgin in Isiah 7. The KJV has beautiful flow. The language is dated though, and may cause comprehension difficulty. It is a good version for memeory work because it flows so well. While it is a good literal translation, there are verses in the KJV that may not have been written in the original books of the New Testament. Examples are Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7. While some people will use no other version and claim that other versions are an abomination, it is important to remember that even the KJV had much criticism when it first came out. The NKJV is also good, but relies largely on the same manuscripts as the KJV. It will include the longer ending of Mark for instance. |
||||||
8 | Does Jn 15:16 "choosing" apply to us? | John 15:16 | Huron | 166612 | ||
Thanks guys. I guess that Christ was talking to the disciples when he said this, and that is who its intended audience was, but that it also applies to us. Huron |
||||||
9 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151219 | ||
Angel, I am in agreement with what you are saying. I think we both agree that Baptism with the Holy Spirit, Baptism, and Conversion are three different things. All are part of the life of the believer. Of course, the person in question becomes a Christian when he believes and enters the fold of the Great Shepherd. That same Shepherd will guide him to the water baptism and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. I think that we also can agree that there are too many "congragational views!" Huron |
||||||
10 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151187 | ||
Searcher thanks for the post #'s. I hope I didn't come across as argumentative. I was trying to type quickly so I could call it a night. Huron |
||||||
11 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151186 | ||
Angel, Good point about speaking in tongues benefitting the speaker only unless there is an interpreter. In the interests of Biblical accuracy, I disagree about water baptism and Baptism with the Holy Spirit. In Acts it talks about them being different events. Mike |
||||||
12 | Holy Spirt w/ evidence of tongues? | 1 Cor 12:10 | Huron | 151162 | ||
Searcher56, Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you that tongues will cease while love will never fail. I also see that tongues is said to "cease" while knowledge and Prophecy will be done away. Getting back to my original question, when will that be, and has that happened yet? Looks like we both have the same answer at this point - "not sure." |
||||||
13 | "For" is to show the Gentiles were part | Acts 10:46 | Huron | 151160 | ||
The word "for" shows how Peter and the others recognized that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles. The fact that the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles was how Peter knew that the Gospel was for the Gentiles also, BUT the speaking in tongues and exalting God is what clued them in to it. | ||||||
14 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151158 | ||
On point #1, you have to read from Acts 2:4 through Acts 2:38 and 2:39 together. Pay special attention to 2:16 and 2:17,33. | ||||||
15 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151149 | ||
Thanks for the posts. I agree with you on your view of MacArthur's statement. He deserves points for originality, though I don't agree with his conclusion. Huron |
||||||
16 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151101 | ||
Searcher, -Point #1 Interesting viewpoint. Would Hebrew believers then in your opinion still speak in tongues? Peter did not say that the prophecy was fulfilled, and thus no longer relevant. Contrast this with Matthew 21:4,5; 27:35 speaking of one time fulfilled events. #2 In Acts 2:16, Acts 10:45-46, and in Acts 19:6 speaking in tongues was the initial evidence that they looked at to determine that they had in fact been baptized with the Holy Spirit. Notice the use of the word "for" in Acts 10:46. Point #3 True, but when is the "perfect coming", and if it hasn't come yet is tongues still relevant. Thanks for your consideration! Huron |
||||||
17 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151099 | ||
Kalos, Thanks for replying. In a lot of ways I agree with you, in some I don't. Tongues does not seem to be a basic doctrine. To me, basic topics include the life, death, burial of Christ, believing in His name and his being God, being baptized as a believer, fellowshipping with other believers, and witnessing to others. I would bet that if we were to go get a cup of coffee somewhere we would see that we agree on a LOT of things. Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I've been a believer about 25 years. Now I'm revisiting all of the "truths" that I had been taught to make sure that I had not run in error. I'm hoping to examine the best arguments for and against tongues being for today. I've seen arguments that made sense for both views. I'm not a newby to the Word having read the NT through over twenty times, and the entire Bible several times. I appreciate your input. What are your views of tongues? |
||||||
18 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151080 | ||
Angel, Thanks for sticking with this discussion. I can see that you've put some time into your efforts. Before we continue our discussion, let me clarify a few things. I'm not saying that ALL were convinced. What I meant was that tongues were the sign by which the apostles were convinced that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles in Acts chapter 10. Secondly, to keep things clear let's not confuse water baptism with baptism with the Holy Spirit. In two documented cases in Acts, Baptism with the Holy Spirit preceded water baptism. Acts 10:44-48 is a great example. The important question is whether Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the initial evidence of speaking with tongues is for ALL generations. Now, getting back to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. It's certainly possible to interpret that as Jesus's coming. Point remains the same. Neither heaven, or Jesus's second coming are past tense, so since the "perfect" has not come, it would seem to indicate that tongues hasn't ceased according to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. |
||||||
19 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151031 | ||
"Scripture never stipulates that all who were baptized and received the Holy Spirit spoke in strange languages..." True, but in Acts it was the thing that convinced them that the various groups had received the Baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, and in Acts 10. Getting back to the question, is there strong scriptural evidence that speaking in tongues was only for the Apostolic age besides 1 Cor 13:8-10? (The reason I say that is because it's possible to interpret "when the perfect comes" as heaven) Thanks! Huron |
||||||
20 | Holy Spirit / Tongues for Today? | Acts 2:39 | Huron | 151001 | ||
Do you think that Acts 2:39 is meant to include ALL Generations that will ever live? Did all Christians in the Apostolic age that had been baptized with the Holy Spirit speak in tongues? Thanks! Huron |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |