Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Mark 9:24 Immediately the boy's father cried out and said, "I do believe; help my unbelief." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Mark 9:24 Immediately the father of the boy cried out [with a desperate, piercing cry], saying, "I do believe; help [me overcome] my unbelief." |
Subject: Holy Spirit baptism and tongues |
Bible Note: I used that outline in an attempt to simplify that which to me you made complicated. Also since I suspected you were using outside sources I thought you would like to see I also was not standing alone in my thoughts on this subject. Your explanation might fly if Paul had only written chapter 14, but Paul also had written chapter 12 and 13. You hypothesis that Paul was using rhetorical questions and making allusions would stand were it not for verse 1 chapter 13, verse 10 chapter 12 and verse 15 chapter 14. You constructed your point on the theory that Paul was teaching that speaking in an unknown language was wrong. Ignoring the fact that Paul was teaching, that speaking in tongue of men was for public usage and speaking in tongues of angels in for private. You ignored Paul’s repeated reference of the two uses of tongues and the two forms of tongues therefore your construction starts to crumble. You tried to centralize your argument by saying Paul was using a rabbinical form of teaching and your right about his training, but most scholars agree Paul’s method of delivery was without that annoying, ‘saying much but never getting to the point’ method of teaching the Pharisees so loved. Paul spoke very bluntly here when he was bringing correction he did not want to be misunderstood. He was a master in making point and then using complementary terms to prove that point. He established truth and built upon it. Sure Paul used rhetorical questions, and asked questions that made the false appear ridiculous. However we never see Paul state a truth and then tear it down rhetorically or otherwise in an attempt to reinforce the original truth. And that is basically what your saying he was doing by your interpretation of this passage. That convinces me you do not have the correct understanding of it. I may not be hundred percent correct myself (that is why I still study this passage), but I see my position as far more defendable than the one you presented. I’m sorry if that offends you I meant no offense. |