changes to what? are you suggesting a liberal approach to Biblical interpretation? that God did n ot mean what HE says? or are you allegorically changing the bible? Nimrod has nothing to do with Acts 2 you have not answered that. That was your suggestion. I see nothing you have provided in scripture to show my misunderstanding of tongues in the bible?
Tongues Perceived as Real Language
- Thread starter Kavik
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
you want to answer what has been asked.
actually we are to approach the bible as the word of God and human reasoning i.e. carnal minded blocks one from receiving what is the Authorial intent . contextual meaning is asking what did not author say , who did he say it too? and how do i apply it to day . The Speaker is God(your quote)
what did 70 ad imply, if you see no change
actually we are to approach the bible as the word of God and human reasoning i.e. carnal minded blocks one from receiving what is the Authorial intent . contextual meaning is asking what did not author say , who did he say it too? and how do i apply it to day . The Speaker is God(your quote)
what did 70 ad imply, if you see no change
actually we are to approach the bible as the word of God and human reasoning i.e. carnal minded blocks one from receiving what is the Authorial intent . contextual meaning is asking what did not author say , who did he say it too? and how do i apply it to day . The Speaker is God(your quote)
who said the bible cannot be trusted, being out of context is not saying the bible cannot be trusted.
why are we writting in english grammer , and still not speaking in greek or hebrew.
yet do you think history was freezed to sustain human logic or spiritual logic.
who said the bible cannot be trusted, being out of context is not saying the bible cannot be trusted.
why are we writting in english grammer , and still not speaking in greek or hebrew.
yet do you think history was freezed to sustain human logic or spiritual logic.
are you saying we cannot trust the biblical writings? and the historical data provided , and geographical location and Biblical ACCOUNTS seen in history ? that the Location recorded in the historical narrative of the bible are not true because they were translated into English?
how about were done . because I do not think you are seriously wanting to talk about the topic of the gifts of the Holy Spirit or or the inerrant word of God .
how about were done . because I do not think you are seriously wanting to talk about the topic of the gifts of the Holy Spirit or or the inerrant word of God .
or already quoted in post number 45
who said the bible cannot be trusted, being out of context is not saying the bible cannot be trusted.
why are we writting in english grammer , and still not speaking in greek or hebrew.
yet do you think history was freezed to sustain human logic or spiritual logic.
who said the bible cannot be trusted, being out of context is not saying the bible cannot be trusted.
why are we writting in english grammer , and still not speaking in greek or hebrew.
yet do you think history was freezed to sustain human logic or spiritual logic.
why are we writting in english grammer , and not writing in greek or hebrew, yet we still do not speaking in greek or hebrew.
with out movement of the spiritual, we would not be having this written exchange.
and again proves my point that the spiritual is not a freeze to the bible. so greek and hebrew would only date as far as around 100 ad, last written entry to the bible. but to ignore the history aspect would lead to what i said earlier human logic using a quote to try and prove a spiritual point. etc
with out movement of the spiritual, we would not be having this written exchange.
and again proves my point that the spiritual is not a freeze to the bible. so greek and hebrew would only date as far as around 100 ad, last written entry to the bible. but to ignore the history aspect would lead to what i said earlier human logic using a quote to try and prove a spiritual point. etc
for example
For God So Loved the World
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God John 3
is read and speaking the same, if you understand what is wrote or said,
ie would it mean the same thing, if you understand what is being said or wrote about. (food for thought)
For God So Loved the World
16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God John 3
is read and speaking the same, if you understand what is wrote or said,
ie would it mean the same thing, if you understand what is being said or wrote about. (food for thought)