Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Timothy 3:2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Timothy 3:2 Now an overseer must be blameless and beyond reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, |
Bible Question:
Hank you’re an interesting person. You have a way of backing off a point making the other person the villain. Case in point you said you did not tell the story of your divorced friend who continued in the ministry to show that what had transpired was okay, that you were just reporting the facts. Isn’t interesting you decided to report the facts in a discussion on divorced ministers? You in fact were using the story in an attempt to validate your point! There is nothing wrong with that! The problem I have is how you then took what I said and turned it on me. I never said you were sanctioning divorce so why mention it? I never attempted to adjudicate the fore mentioned divorce case so why mention it? I never pointed a finger in fact I went out of my way not to impugn anyone so why imply I did? I certainly did not cast any self righteous glare as I would have been the first to leave the day Jesus said “he who is without sin let him cast the first stone”. Without the work of the cross and the precious cleansing blood my fate would be sealed. So why even mention a “self righteous” “glare”. I never pointed a finger, I merely asked if we knew God’s will in this situation. I further ask you to show me where I impugn or even attempted to impugn God’s wisdom. I stand in awe of God, I never questioned what he said I questioned what man said God said. I could take offense (but I won’t :-) ) at your attempt to imply I was questioning God on this or any other subject. All these words you used in your response to my comment, all inflammatory, all without just cause. Yes Hank you’re an interesting guy. |
Bible Answer: Dear Ed, if you for a moment think I was talking about (or preaching to) you, please disencumber yourself from any notion that I was suggesting, or even attempting to suggest, that you were the "villain" as you put it. You question why I told the story of the divorced minister in a discussion of divorced ministers, and submit that this seemed a reasonable place to tell it. You say that all of my comment was inflammatory and all without cause. Ed, I never said that you were pointing a finger at anyone or impugning God about anything. I'm sorry that you have taken my remarks so personally, as being meant to be accusatory of you. They were merely meant to show, and do show, how I personally feel about the matter as it applies to me, and to me alone. I neither know nor am I particularly concerned about how other people may feel. That is their business, not mine.....Again, Ed, please believe me and put your heart at ease: I did not and do not accuse you of anything. I am truly sorry that you took offense. If I had had any clue that you would take any part of this posting as an offense to yourself personally, I would have most surely inserted a disclaimer to the effect that you were not in any way intended to be the target of anything I said in it. Words, spoken or in print -- especially in print -- can very easily be taken the wrong way, that is to say, the reader sees a meaning in them that the speaker or writer did not have in mind when he spoke or penned them. That, as I'm sure you will agree to, is a rather common occurrence in our daily give-and-take relationships with other people. Those of us who post on this forum are especially vulnerable to being misunderstood by what we say and to misunderstanding what others may say. Language is a tricky business and words have a way of being disobedient to our thoughts.....I have every reason on earth to believe that you are a man who loves the Lord and are doing your very best to follow Him. I think your postings, your questions, your comments are born of pure and honest motives. Never have I thought that you were trying to cause a train wreck on the forum by anything you have said. Neither, for that matter, am I. I appreciate your candor in asking me to give an answer for what I said. It is my sincere wish that I have dealt with this matter properly and to your full satisfaction. What I have said on this post is the best I can do, and I leave it to you to decide whether it is sufficient. --Hank |