Tongues are the initial sign of the new birth

[TweetyBird]

Really? You have evidence of this? Or do you jut make it up?

(Oh, and I'm more interested in truth than what you claim. The TR and KJV are KNOWN to have errors.)

Wycliffe - 1300 AD

CAP 8
1 But Jhesus wente in to the mount of Olyuete.
2 And eerli eft he cam in to the temple; and al the puple cam to hym; and he sat, and tauyte hem.
3 And scribis and Fariseis bryngen a womman takun in auoutrye, and thei settiden hir in the myddil,
4 and seiden to hym, Maystir, this womman is now takun in auoutrie.
5 And in the lawe Moises comaundide vs to stoone suche; therfor what seist thou?
6 And thei seiden this thing temptynge hym, that thei myyten accuse hym. And Jhesus bowide hym silf doun, and wroot with his fyngur in the erthe.
7 And whanne thei abiden axynge hym, he reiside hym silf, and seide to hem, He of you that is without synne, first caste a stoon in to hir.
8 And eft he bowide hym silf, and wroot in the erthe.
9 And thei herynge these thingis, wenten awei oon aftir anothir, and thei bigunnen fro the eldre men; and Jhesus dwelte aloone, and the womman stondynge in the myddil.
10 And Jhesus reiside hym silf, and seide to hir, Womman, where ben thei that accusiden thee? no man hath dampned thee.
11 Sche seide, No man, Lord. Jhesus seide `to hir, Nethir Y schal dampne thee; go thou, and now aftirward nyle thou synne more.

The Vulgate has John 8 as well. Translated 4th century.

 

[TweetyBird]

No ancient scrolls can be identified as corrupt. They are just plainly scrolls for humans to reckon as scrolls or not.

Regardless, they agree with each other in different languages, that's the point.

They don't even agree with each other, at all. Found in the dump, buried in the sand. Promoted all of sudden out of the blue as having credibility? Like God hid the truth for hundreds of years when He promised to preserve His Word for us? It all sounds like subversion to me. As usual, you go for the shadowy and try to make it shine. Whatever ....

 

[TweetyBird]

I've been around true, documented miracles, but unfortunately there are a lot of fakes also.

Had a close relative who had x-rays from the Mayo Clinic showing 2 ruptured discs in his back, and after prayer, they did more x-rays, and the discs literally looked brand new.

I've seen reputable doctors do a second evaluation, and give money back for the doctor visit because they said "we don't know what happened - it was there, and now it's not".

If Jesus gave Paul and Peter that power, He is no respecter of persons. All are not real, but all are not fake.

You'll know them by their FRUITS, not the signs. But signs accompanying or following a Christian shouldn't be thought of as strange.

The difference is that God is doing miracles all the time. He has never ceased doing miracles. The issue is people claiming they have been given gifts of healing and call it a miracle. That is not happening at all, in the least. That is what Jesus warned us of as did Paul, but people don't pay attention because they are so excited about their spiritual prowess that they actually believe they are healing people with their faith. It is a disaster and is completely destroying countless thousands of lives when the healing does not happen as promised or when the hype wears off as does the so-called healing. The devil sure has a lot of people all in twisted mess, if you ask me.

 

[SimpleMan77]

The difference is that God is doing miracles all the time. He has never ceased doing miracles. The issue is people claiming they have been given gifts of healing and call it a miracle. That is not happening at all, in the least. That is what Jesus warned us of as did Paul, but people don't pay attention because they are so excited about their spiritual prowess that they actually believe they are healing people with their faith. It is a disaster and is completely destroying countless thousands of lives when the healing does not happen as promised or when the hype wears off as does the so-called healing. The devil sure has a lot of people all in twisted mess, if you ask me.

Agreed on most fronts. There are a small number of people who are used of God in this way, and a bunch of frauds who are absolutely destroying faith. The existence of one neither legitimizes or disqualifies the other.




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[themuzicman]

Wycliffe - 1300 AD

CAP 8
1 But Jhesus wente in to the mount of Olyuete.
2 And eerli eft he cam in to the temple; and al the puple cam to hym; and he sat, and tauyte hem.
3 And scribis and Fariseis bryngen a womman takun in auoutrye, and thei settiden hir in the myddil,
4 and seiden to hym, Maystir, this womman is now takun in auoutrie.
5 And in the lawe Moises comaundide vs to stoone suche; therfor what seist thou?
6 And thei seiden this thing temptynge hym, that thei myyten accuse hym. And Jhesus bowide hym silf doun, and wroot with his fyngur in the erthe.
7 And whanne thei abiden axynge hym, he reiside hym silf, and seide to hem, He of you that is without synne, first caste a stoon in to hir.
8 And eft he bowide hym silf, and wroot in the erthe.
9 And thei herynge these thingis, wenten awei oon aftir anothir, and thei bigunnen fro the eldre men; and Jhesus dwelte aloone, and the womman stondynge in the myddil.
10 And Jhesus reiside hym silf, and seide to hir, Womman, where ben thei that accusiden thee? no man hath dampned thee.
11 Sche seide, No man, Lord. Jhesus seide `to hir, Nethir Y schal dampne thee; go thou, and now aftirward nyle thou synne more.

The Vulgate has John 8 as well. Translated 4th century.

I mean evidence that the phrase "Textus Receptus" was used before 1633.

The origin of the term Textus Receptus comes from the publisher's preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and his nephew Abraham Elzevir who were partners in a printing business at Leiden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

 

[SimpleMan77]

Believers initially spoke in foreign languages when they received Holy Spirit, but it became unnecessary (I Corinthians 13:8)

Why was it more necessary then than now?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Believers initially spoke in foreign languages when they received Holy Spirit, but it became unnecessary (I Corinthians 13:8).

Why was it more necessary then than now?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jdorman]

Mark 16:16-18 is understood by Bible scholars to to be added by much later clerics or copyists. It is generally not accepted as valid Scripture. (See the BSyArm Ms.)


Acts 3:19 and 2:38 do not prove of the necessity to speak in tongues. Receiving the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean speaking in tongues.

Your perception of Isaiah 28:11,12 is, unfortunately, not in tune with what is meant by the author of the Bible. There are cross-references to Deuteronomy 28:49 & Jeremiah 5:15 which show that Isaiah was not referring to speaking in tongues (as is thought of today). Moses says in Deuteronomy 28:49: "Jehovah will raise up against you a nation far away, from the end of the earth...a nation whose tongue [language] you will not understand." Jeremiah said: "Here I [Jehovah] am bringing in upon you men a nation from far away, O house of Israel. It is an enduring nation. It is a nation of long ago, a nation whose language you do not know, and you cannot hear understandingly what they speak."

In light of that, we can understand that the Bible writers were not speaking of being able to speak in the gibberish of the likes of today's "speaking in tongues," nor were they speaking about "times of refreshing" for Israel. God had tried to tell Israel of a refreshing and a resting place, but they refused to accept what He offered. Read the texts more closely. Israel "was not willing to hear." Therefore He called upon Israel a nation that would not treat them kindly, whose language they couldn't understand.

Believers initially spoke in foreign languages when they received Holy Spirit, but it became unnecessary (I Corinthians 13:8)

Acts 11:15 does not say that "the apostles used tongues as proof the Gentiles received God." Read that verse. It simply says that the Holy Spirit "fell upon them." Hello. No mention of speaking in tongues. You are ASSUMING that speaking in tongues went hand-in-hand with receiving God. That is not what the Scripture says. In fact, Paul stated the following: "Not all speak in tongues, do they?" (I Corinthians 12:30) So how could that be any "proof" that anyone had received God?

You are wrong in your conclusion, as I have shown, if you will take the time to read my post and look up the Scriptures cited.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090316...puserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/New-Ch9.htm

This chapter in the link deals with each issue you bring up. It deals with the textual criticisms of Mark 16. It deals with the context and interpretation of Isaiah 28 and with 1Cor 12-14. If you would take the time and please read the chapter and the Scripture it brings up ; )

 

[AgainstAll]

The fruit of the Spirit is love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness meekness self-control.
Galatians 5:19-22

And they that belong to the Messiah have crucified the flesh with it's passions and lusts. Galatians 5:24

The Messiah said we must actually know Him in order to enter heaven; Matthew 7:21-23

And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments; 1 John 2:3

His commandments = Luke 6:27-48 Matthew 7:12

 

[Jdorman]

The fruit of the Spirit is love joy peace patience kindness goodness faithfulness meekness self-control.
Galatians 5:19-22

And they that belong to the Messiah have crucified the flesh with it's passions and lusts. Galatians 5:24

The Messiah said we must actually know Him in order to enter heaven; Matthew 7:21-23

And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments; 1 John 2:3

His commandments = Luke 6:27-48 Matthew 7:12

"Not a Sign of the Spirit's Abiding Presence

Speaking in tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Spirit, but by itself it does not prove the abiding presence of the Spirit. Many more important evidences of the Spirit's abiding presence exist, such as the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). In particular, love is the ultimate test of true discipleship (John 13:34-35). The true child of God will love God, obey His commandments, walk after the Spirit, and be led by the Spirit (I John 2:3-5; Romans 8:4, 14). In the absence of these characteristics, speaking in tongues does not guarantee that the Spirit dwells in one and controls his life." (David K Bernard)