Saved by Water
- Thread starter Wansvic
- 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.
FreeGrace2 said:
You really need to GIVE UP on your Acts 2:38 mantra.
Acts 10-11 PROVES that the pattern of receivng the Holy Spirit is by faith. Period.
Let it go. You HAVE BEEN refuted. Accept the truth and reject the false doctrine you have been pushing.
This is just hilarious.
The pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit has been clearly presented in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2 and 5.
You should accept the Word.
You really need to GIVE UP on your Acts 2:38 mantra.
Acts 10-11 PROVES that the pattern of receivng the Holy Spirit is by faith. Period.
Let it go. You HAVE BEEN refuted. Accept the truth and reject the false doctrine you have been pushing.
This is just hilarious.
The pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit has been clearly presented in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2 and 5.
You should accept the Word.
No absurdity whatsoever.
I don't know about the ESV or the NASB...
I just know that there are certain Bibles that are based on texts that do not retain certain words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages...and that those passages are in fact things that the Holy Spirit can use to speak to a person.
So, when those things are removed, the person reading that version of the Bible where those things are removed is being cheated out of what the Holy Spirit might want to say to him...and what the Holy Spirit would say to him if he were reading a Bible that includes the words that have been taken out of the Bible that he is reading.
You were even the one who brought up the fact that certain passages are not included in some Bibles.
I would not want to be someone who abides by such Bibles....because in abiding in those Bibles one would be agreeing with the action of the translators in taking away from God's word....and the consequences are severe (Revelation 22:18-19).
Whereas the consequences are visible and less severe if a person were to add to the word...and therefore, also, since those consequences have not appeared for the translators of the versions that retain certain things in the word, I conclude that these have not added to the word but that rather the translators of modern versions have taken away from it...and will receive the more severe consequences of doing that; while those consequences are also basically invisible except to God until the day of judgment.
I don't know about the ESV or the NASB...
I just know that there are certain Bibles that are based on texts that do not retain certain words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, even entire passages...and that those passages are in fact things that the Holy Spirit can use to speak to a person.
So, when those things are removed, the person reading that version of the Bible where those things are removed is being cheated out of what the Holy Spirit might want to say to him...and what the Holy Spirit would say to him if he were reading a Bible that includes the words that have been taken out of the Bible that he is reading.
You were even the one who brought up the fact that certain passages are not included in some Bibles.
I would not want to be someone who abides by such Bibles....because in abiding in those Bibles one would be agreeing with the action of the translators in taking away from God's word....and the consequences are severe (Revelation 22:18-19).
Whereas the consequences are visible and less severe if a person were to add to the word...and therefore, also, since those consequences have not appeared for the translators of the versions that retain certain things in the word, I conclude that these have not added to the word but that rather the translators of modern versions have taken away from it...and will receive the more severe consequences of doing that; while those consequences are also basically invisible except to God until the day of judgment.
Only futile because you have apparently hardened your heart to what Acts 2:38-39 has to say.
Please note that my position is not that a person cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from baptism in Jesus' Name;
But, rather, that baptism in Jesus' Name is a condition for a promise in holy scripture...of remission of sins and the Holy Ghost...and that if you fulfill the condition of the promise, you will receive the promise.
I would point out also that, according to Acts 2:39, this conditional promise is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.
(see Romans 8:30).
Please note that my position is not that a person cannot receive the Holy Spirit apart from baptism in Jesus' Name;
But, rather, that baptism in Jesus' Name is a condition for a promise in holy scripture...of remission of sins and the Holy Ghost...and that if you fulfill the condition of the promise, you will receive the promise.
I would point out also that, according to Acts 2:39, this conditional promise is given to as many as the Lord our God shall call.
(see Romans 8:30).
Thank you, But I will listen to the experts.
Paul did not tell individuals to repent so they could recieve the spirit. He told EVERYONE (it was a command)
He only told individuals (you) to be baptized.
Using your defenition not only is against the actual true meanings of the word. It makes what Peter said nonsensical
Paul did not tell individuals to repent so they could recieve the spirit. He told EVERYONE (it was a command)
He only told individuals (you) to be baptized.
Using your defenition not only is against the actual true meanings of the word. It makes what Peter said nonsensical
FreeGrace2 said:
All the "chapters and verses" didn't say what you have claimed. You only think they do.
let's make this easy on both of us. I don't want to wade back to find your list. But I'm sure you can at least cite the reference of your favorite one.
So, quote that fav verse and I will show you what I mean.
If I go back and pick one, and show what it really says, you'll probably come back with, "well, that wasn't the clearest one". So something like that.
So, if you pick out what you think is the clearest, then there will be no question about it.
All the "chapters and verses" didn't say what you have claimed. You only think they do.
let's make this easy on both of us. I don't want to wade back to find your list. But I'm sure you can at least cite the reference of your favorite one.
So, quote that fav verse and I will show you what I mean.
If I go back and pick one, and show what it really says, you'll probably come back with, "well, that wasn't the clearest one". So something like that.
So, if you pick out what you think is the clearest, then there will be no question about it.
FreeGrace2 said:
So, just to be clear, you actually believe that those who read the NASB, ESV or any other version are going to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit "might want to say" to them.
That is pure absurdity. No offense.
Of course your statement was absurd.
Your blanket comment covers ALL other translations, whether you were aware of that or not.
Are you not aware that there are SEVERAL groupings of manuscripts that contain differences?
The grouping of manuscripts used to translate the KJV were dated to the 10th Century. That means about 900 years of scribes coping copies of copies for 900 years.
There are other groupings of manuscripts that are dated MUCH earlier than that. Back to the 2nd Century, so there is a LOT LESS copying of copies to translate.
iow, the closer the manuscript is to the original autograph, the less mistakes will be made.
That's why it is an error to stick with just one version. Biblehub.com will give you 28 English translations, plus an interlinear and lexicon to understand the words and what they mean.
Right. I was referring to translations what were done from much later copies, rather than earlier copies. The versions that don't have some passages were written EARLIER, which shows that those passages were ADDED LATER.
That's the problem with the KJV.
So, just to be clear, you actually believe that those who read the NASB, ESV or any other version are going to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit "might want to say" to them.
That is pure absurdity. No offense.
Of course your statement was absurd.
Your blanket comment covers ALL other translations, whether you were aware of that or not.
Are you not aware that there are SEVERAL groupings of manuscripts that contain differences?
The grouping of manuscripts used to translate the KJV were dated to the 10th Century. That means about 900 years of scribes coping copies of copies for 900 years.
There are other groupings of manuscripts that are dated MUCH earlier than that. Back to the 2nd Century, so there is a LOT LESS copying of copies to translate.
iow, the closer the manuscript is to the original autograph, the less mistakes will be made.
That's why it is an error to stick with just one version. Biblehub.com will give you 28 English translations, plus an interlinear and lexicon to understand the words and what they mean.
Right. I was referring to translations what were done from much later copies, rather than earlier copies. The versions that don't have some passages were written EARLIER, which shows that those passages were ADDED LATER.
That's the problem with the KJV.
Don't be ridiculous. I explained why Peter told them that.
But, the real question is why you seem to have HARDENED your own heart against the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.
The pattern that is God's plan for TODAY is found in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.
That's what I'm sticking with.
But, the real question is why you seem to have HARDENED your own heart against the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.
The pattern that is God's plan for TODAY is found in the account of Cornelius and Gal 3:2,5.
That's what I'm sticking with.
He said every one of you should be baptized. So, even if you, is singular, the context bears out that he was telling that whole group of people to be baptized.
And yes, each person is called individually to repent.
Isa 51:1, Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2, Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
And yes, each person is called individually to repent.
Isa 51:1, Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2, Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
Example.
I bring up Acts 2:38 and say that it is a conditional promise of the Holy Ghost to all who fulfill the condition of the promise. But you say, no, that promise is only for the people who were there present, who actually witnessed the miracles of Jesus. But you have no biblical basisi for saying that; while I have a biblical basis (in Acts 2:39) for saying that that promise was for those there present, and their children, and to all that were than afar off.
But you want to insist, without any biblical basis, that the promise was only to the people there present.
I bring up Acts 2:38 and say that it is a conditional promise of the Holy Ghost to all who fulfill the condition of the promise. But you say, no, that promise is only for the people who were there present, who actually witnessed the miracles of Jesus. But you have no biblical basisi for saying that; while I have a biblical basis (in Acts 2:39) for saying that that promise was for those there present, and their children, and to all that were than afar off.
But you want to insist, without any biblical basis, that the promise was only to the people there present.
So, you're saying that the people who copied the manuscripts in the 1th century ADDED to the word.
Why then, were not the plagues of the book of Revelation added to them (Revelation 22:18-19)?
But if modern translators took away from the word, the consequences are invisible except before God until the day of judgment.
Why then, were not the plagues of the book of Revelation added to them (Revelation 22:18-19)?
But if modern translators took away from the word, the consequences are invisible except before God until the day of judgment.
Yes, and that has to do with the fact that the ESV in particular says that Peter stood condemned. So, if you are going to read your ESV in Engllish, and not refer back to the Greek, you would come up with a faulty theology.
Whereas with the kjv you do not have to refer back to the original Greek in order to come up with a c orrect theology.
Whereas with the kjv you do not have to refer back to the original Greek in order to come up with a c orrect theology.