Religions > Bible > Carl's Imaginary Friend's Falsehoods Against BB Proven to be The Vain Imaginations of a Fool
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible Bob" |
| Date: |
28 Aug 2007 07:14:28 PM |
| Object: |
Carl's Imaginary Friend's Falsehoods Against BB Proven to be The Vain Imaginations of a Fool |
Carl's Imaginary Friend's Falsehoods Against BB Proven to be The Vain
Imaginations of a Fool
The arche villan known as Carl the Fraud has once again conspired in a
conspiracy against that great champion of champion saint known as
Bible Bob whom I affectionatly refer to as "me".
Warning adult content follows. Do not expose children to the David
Goliath battle described below wherein David aka BB defeats Goliath
(played by Carl and his imaginary friend) the self proclaimed enemy
of God and God's beloved. The stone has been chosen, the sling has
been readied, David has assumed his stance -
I cut and pasted the following from one of the Philistine's posts.
This will be a long post because I had to cut and paste the post that
Carl's imaginary friend refers to so that you would see just how low
Carl will stoop. As usual my witty hyperbole will be in play; but
hyperbole is nothing more than a way of illustrating truth - truth via
exxageration.
Comments by Carl's imaginary friend:
In "How Trinitarians Deceive with the Bible - Baptism" Bible Bob examined
the use of the prepositional en pneumati agiw kai puri (en with the dative
case) in Matt 3:11. The key to properly translating prepositional phrases is
to rely upon context as a means of expressing the meaning. Bible Bob
preferred a translation with the preposition indicating the place or sphere
in which something happens (in the Holy Spirit and fire). His translation of
the preposition is based on an unwarranted restriction of the meaning of the
preposition, which results in an unlikely conclusion. When considered in
context, the prepositional phrase is best translated as indicating the
instrument or means by which something is accomplished, hence, the
grammatically and contextually correct translation "with the Holy Spirit and
fire."
Below is the article that the ever famous Bible Bob wrote. You did
notice that I am the one that had to quote what was being talked about
because in his usual deceptive fashion Carl does not quote what he
talks about. Is it not Carl who is famous for citing verse numbers
without the verses and then saying that the cited verse says something
it does not say? It sure is. Is it not Carl that makes assertions
that he does not back up with any evidence other than "because I say
so." Yep, he sured does that a lot. Hence, it is Carl making up what
Carl is saying someone else said. Either that, or some person is
being quoted out of context or some person with the same deceptive
habit patterns as Carl is being quoted by Carl. My bet is that Carl
is either making up his usual lies or misrepresenting what a janitor
at the local community collge told him. There is another possibility,
Carl may have emailed a paragraph out of context to a friend who out
of loyalty and friendship to Carl told Carl what he wanted to hear.
Let's face it, anyone who knows Carl know that he only hears what he
wants to hear.
If Carl were an honest man, he would have emailed me what he presented
to the alleged expert along with the experts reply. That way I could
have read everything in context and prepared a suitable response to
Carl. But, what does Carl know about honesty, integrity, manhood,
love, and other Christian stuff; not much other than what he has read
in articles that he doesn't understand but posts for us to read to see
if we can undertand them.
Joh 10:10 KJV
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I
am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more
abundantly.
Thief" from "kleptes" is one who steals by fraud or in secret; a
sneaky thief whereas a "lestes" is a robber, one who robs openly and
with violence, a plunderer. Carl is afraid to try to rob BB face to
face in the light. He prefers stealth waiting till dark after BB
leaves his house ungaurded. Carl reminds me of some one esle, wonder
who that might be.
Me, I do thing in the light and I don't come to steal or to kill or to
destroy. I try to bring life through the rightly divided word of
truth so that people may enjoy an abundant life. I'm more like a
shephard.
But what the heck, if I can immitate my Lord I guess Carl has the
right to immitate his lord.
Oh, one thing more; Carl's imaginary friend did not disagree with the
rest of the article is in effect saying that he aggrees to everything
else in the article. I am using Trinitarian logic as used in John
20:29 where since Jesus did not disagree with Thomas, He agreed with
Thomas.
Be warned, adults only when you get to the two lines of asterisks used
ot make a box. BB will utterly destroy Carl's imaginary friend's
(probably Carl's) false assertions. No child should be permitted to
see such carnage.
Article begins here:
****************************************
How Trinitarians Deceive With The Bible - Baptism
The editors of the King James Version did not claim to be inspired of
God when they developed their version of the Bible. The word of God
asserts that holy men of God spoke the Scriptures. The product that
they produced had one Author; God Who produced the Scriptures through
holy men of God (prophets) through or by way of holy spirit which is
the gift or agent of God who is the Holy Spirit.
2Pe 1:20-21 KJV
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
men of God spake {as they were} moved by the Holy Ghost.
The Greek from which the words "{as they were} moved by the Holy
Ghost" come are "hupo (preposition = under) pneumatos (noun = spirit,
genitive singular neuter) hagiou (adjective = holy, genitive singular
neuter) pheromenoi (verb = carried)". The preposition "hupo" in the
genitive case indicates motion from beneath an object. What was moved
(speech) originated from under, or under the influence of, holy
spirit.
There is no definite article preceding pneumatos in the Greek. The
editors of the King James Version added the word to the version
without putting it in italics to tell readers it had been added. This
fallacy of accent occurs over a hundred times in connection with the
word spirit. A similar fallacy used by the editors is to omit the
definie article when it does occur in the English
In Greek, the adjective follows the noun it modifies. Here the
adjective hagiou modifies the common noun pneumatos. Both words are
genitive singular neuter and fill the adjective slot of the sentence.
In English versions the adjective is moved to the front of the noun so
that in English we do not read "spirit holy" we read "holy spirit"
where "holy" is the adjective and "spirit" is the common noun. In
this verse the editors changed the part of speech of "holy" from
adjective to proper adjective and the common noun "ghost" (spirit) to
a proper noun by inserting the definite article "the" and capitalizing
the words "holy" and "ghost". English common nouns are converted to
proper nouns and common adjectives are converted to proper adjectives
by capitalization of the first letter in the word.
These behaviors are fallacies of accent where the editors accent words
contrary to their intended sense in order to cause the reader to
understand the words the way the editors want them to be understood. A
version of the Bible is not a word by word translation from the word
of God. A version reflects what the editors desire to convey as the
sense of the word of God. This in itself is not wrong for they are
merely expounding the Scriptures so that English readers will
understand what the word of God says. If you were to expound a
passage of Scripture to me you would explain to me what you think the
sense or meaning of the passage is. I am doing that for you as I
write these paragraphs about the above passages. Our opinions may be
right or wrong which is why each of us is accountable to God for
searching the Scriptures so that we know whether what we are taught is
true. If you were to accept what I write as truth without verifying
whether what I write is true I would suspect that you are not a very
intelligent person. I would group you among those who are the type
that would say "If the King James Version was good enough for the
Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me." Rest assured that I do not
accept as truth anything that any man writes conerning what the word
of God says until I first search the Scriptures to determine whether
what he writes is true. I compare what man says to what the word says
and if they don't match, I don't buy what the man sells.
The King James editors gave the sense of the passages according to
their understanding. Their understanding was influenced by religious,
political, and philosophical views they held before they prepared the
version (just like you and I). They were not holy men of God who
spoke under the influence of holy spirit. The editors did not claim
to be inspired of God. Some people believe that the editors were
inspired by God, but if that were true there would be no errors in the
versions.
It is my own opinion that the editors were men with the noble goal of
making the word of God available to the common man, that these men
conveyed the meaning of the word of God as they understood it, and
that these men did on occasion add to, omit from, and change the sense
of the word of God in their product to promote their religious,
political, and philosophical views.
The KJV editors continued the tradition of the editors that preceded
them including the first editor of the word of God who we know as Eve.
When approached by the serpent, the woman added to the word of God,
omitted from the word of God, and changed the word of God and the
result was catastrophic. Her behavior doomed herself, her husband,
and all those that came from them. So it is with the various editions
of the Bible where editors added to, omitted from, or changed the
original pure word of God to watered down poisonous versions that have
brought much wrong doctrine and the sin, sickness, and death which
accompanies wrong doctrine into the world. But those words have to be
qualified by stating that we have no actual originals so what they
watered down was what they considered to be the word of God.
****************************************************
Carl's imaginary friend agrees to all of the above. Below is what
Carl's imaginary friend spoke about. You will see that what I wrote
proves Carl's imaginary friend to be a liar and a deceiver. I will
quote the liar's lies for you so you can compare his lies to what I
actually said.
In "How Trinitarians Deceive with the Bible - Baptism" Bible Bob examined
the use of the prepositional en pneumati agiw kai puri (en with the dative
case) in Matt 3:11. The key to properly translating prepositional phrases is
to rely upon context as a means of expressing the meaning. Bible Bob
preferred a translation with the preposition indicating the place or sphere
in which something happens (in the Holy Spirit and fire). His translation of
the preposition is based on an unwarranted restriction of the meaning of the
preposition, which results in an unlikely conclusion. When considered in
context, the prepositional phrase is best translated as indicating the
instrument or means by which something is accomplished, hence, the
grammatically and contextually correct translation "with the Holy Spirit and
fire."
****************************************************
The purpose of this article is to expose wrong doctrine concerning
baptism that has resulted from the incorrect translation of the word
of God in the versions. It would be senseless to point out wrong
doctrine without providing the correct doctrine to replace the wrong
doctrine with. So, I will point out what is wrong and then show you
what is right.
Mat 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and {with} fire:
First, the prepositions "with" which occur before "water" and before
"the Holy Ghost" are not translated from "meta" (with, in association
and companionship with) or "sun" (with, in proximity to). The Greek
preposition is "en" which governs only the dative case and means "in"
as in "in the house". When John baptized people did he sprinkle them
"with" some water or did John immerse them "in" water? He submerged
those he baptized in water.
The same Greek preposition is used for Jesus' baptism. The verse
should end "he shall baptize you in holy spirit and fire." The
baptisms, both of them, are "in" as in "inside"; not "with." The
preposition "en" (in) is expressed as a dot in the center of a circle
which remains at rest and continuance within the perimeter of the
circle. The Greek preposition meta was not used because it governs
only the Genitive and Accusative cases; not the Dative. The Greek
preposition "sun" denotes proximity with and governs only the dative
case; but God did not use it. God chose the preposition "en" which in
this verse should be translated "in" because people would be immersed
in the substance; the substance was not a tool to baptize "with". In
a literal sense, Jesus would immerse those spoken of in holy spirit
just as John had immersed him in water when He was baptized.
********************************************************
See, the deceiver was proven to be a liar and a fraud and a deceiver.
BB did not take anything out of context. If you read on you will see
that BB also went on and showed other examples, etc. etc.
********************************************************
Mat 3:16 KJV
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:
and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of
God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Note that the spirit of God did not go into Jesus; but came down
"upon" Jesus. Hence, it was a conditional application of spirit upon
Jesus that Jesus could lose in the same way Adam lost spirit. Had
Jesus not accomplished his mission successfully, he could have ended
up like Adam, dead. When we are saved spirit is put in us making it
unconditional. We cannot lose the incorruptible seed by which were
born again because it is not corruptible; even though we are in our
body and soul parts may sin like troopers. Nothing that you or I can
do will corrupt the eternal life in us. Nothing that Satan can do can
corrupt the eternal life that God put in us.
Mat 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and {with} fire:
There is no definite article in the Greek preceding the word "pneuma".
The editors added the word to the English version without placing it
in italics as the editors of the LITV did (the LITV is the only
version I have found that "usually" places "the" in italics when it
appears before "spirit" when there is no definite article in the
Greek). The Greek reads "en pneumati hagioo kai puri" where the noun
"pneumati" and the adjective "hagioo" are dative singular neuter. In
the Greek the adjective follows the noun and the definite article
precedes the noun. In English, the article and the adjective precede
the noun. So, the editors moved holy to the front of ghost, inserted
"the" before holy, changed holy to a proper adjective and changed
ghost to a proper noun by capitalizing the two words. Since "ghost"
refers to a dead soul, the correct English word is "spirit".
Capitalizing the words "holy" and "ghost" is a fallacy of accent where
words are accented incorrectly. What the editors did was translate
the passage so that Jesus would baptize people with the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God. That is not what the Greek conveys. Jesus
would not immerse people in God the Giver; but in the gift of God
which is holy spirit.
Mar 01:08 KJV
I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost.
The prepositions "with" are from "en" and should be translated "in" as
in Matthew, above. The Greek reads "en pneumati hagioo" and the noun
and adjective are dative singular neuter to agree in concord. There
is no definite article before "pneumati" so there should be no
definite article before the word "Ghost" in the version. The passage
says that Jesus will baptize people in holy spirit which is the gift
of God. The English version is not correct because it indicates that
the people would be baptized in God the Giver; the Holy Spirit..
John's account of the baptism of Jesus puts things in better
perspective. I will insert some words in brackets [words] for the
sake of brevity.
Joh 1:30-34 KJV
30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is
preferred before me: for he was before me.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel,
therefore am I come baptizing with [Gr. en, in] water.
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit [spirit, not God]
descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with [Gr. en,
in] water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
[Gr. en, in] the [Gr. omit] Holy Ghost [holy spirit, the gift or
agent of God].
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John testified that God spoke to him about Jesus, and that Jesus is
the Son of God. John immersed Jesus in water. Then the spirit (not
God) descended and abode "upon" Jesus. This is when Jesus is
announced to be the Son of God.
That same Jesus who is the Son of God would at a future time baptize
people in holy spirit which is the gift of God. Jesus was not
baptized in the Holy Spirit (God) or the Spirit (God); Jesus was
baptized in water. What came and remained upon Jesus was spirit the
gift or agent of God in operation in the creation. However, the gift
that the Son received from the Father was upon Him; not in Him. It
would be a while before he could give of Himself to the apostles and
impart the gift of holy spirit into them. First, he had to defeat
Satan, do a bunch of other stuff, die, be raised from the dead, and
ascend to the right hand of the father from where he could give gifts
unto men. Just prior to His ascension to the right hand of the
Father, Jesus told the apostles.
Act 1:5 KJV
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Later, Peter remembered what Jesus had said on that day which was ten
days before Pentecost. Peter said:
Act 11:16 KJV
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
In both passages the words "with the Holy Ghost" are translated from
"en pneumati hagioo" without the definite article and in all cases the
preposition "with" should be translated "in" so that "with the Holy
Ghost" should read "in holy spirit." Jesus said that he would baptize
the apostles in holy spirit not many days hence. Ten days later on
Pentecost twelve men were sitting in the temple (not 120 in the upper
room (follow your pronouns).
Act 1:26 KJV
And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he
was numbered with the eleven apostles.
Eleven plus one equals twelve apostles. Here the word "with" is from
"meta" meaning in association and companionship with. Matthias was
the replacement for Judas. Twelve is the number for governmental
perfection, twelve apostles were needed so Matthias was added to the
number making twelve.
Act 2:1 KJV
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place.
The conjunction "and" tells us that there should not have been a
chapter division here because the verse continues about what was being
said in the last verse of the preceding chapter. The pronoun "they"
refers back to the twelve from the previous chapter. The twelve who
had received the promise from Jesus Christ were all together in "one
place". The verse does not say that they were in the upper room and
the verse does not say that 120 people were in the upper room.
The upper room is where the apostles abode; where they slept and ate
their meals. The eleven men who lived in the upper room are named in
Acts 1:13.
Act 1:13 KJV
And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where
abode both [1] Peter, and [2] James, and [3] John, and [4] Andrew, [5]
Philip, and [6] Thomas, [7] Bartholomew, and [8] Matthew, [9] James
{the son} of Alphaeus, and [10] Simon Zelotes, and [11] Judas {the
brother} of James.
Act 1:14 KJV
These [11] all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Act 1:15 KJV
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and
said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Do verses 13-15 say "where" the people met for prayer and supplication
with the women? Women could not go into the male living quarters.
Verse 15 speaks of the number of "names" together were "about" an
hundred and twenty. It does not say there were one hundred and twenty
people. How many Marys, Peter's, Judas', John's, etc. were there? The
logical place for them to meet was in "the house" spoken of in the
next chapter.
Act 2:1 KJV
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one
accord in one place.
Act 2:2 KJV
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they [the twelve] were
sitting.
The word house is preceded and emphasized by the definite article in
the Greek and is derived from the Greek word "oikon". Not just any
house, the house where a whole lot of people could sit together. The
day was Pentecost and good Jews were supposed to be in the temple.
The twelve were in one place with one accord, unanimously. Where
could a lot of people with the same purpose in mind get together.
Where could Peter stand up with the eleven and speak to men of Judea
and that dwell at Jerusalem? It wouldn't be an upper room where
eleven men lived. It would be the house of God, the temple.
Act 2:14 KJV
But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said
unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all {ye} that dwell at Jerusalem, be
this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
The sound from heaven was "as of a" rushing mighty wind and it filled
all the house (temple) where they [the twelve] were sitting.
Act 2:3 KJV
And there appeared unto them [the twelve] cloven tongues like as of
fire, and it sat upon each of them [the twelve, not 120].
Act 2:4 KJV
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This time the phrase "with the Holy Ghost" is not translated from "en
pneumati hagioo" This time there is no preposition and no definite
article; only the words "pneumatos hagion" which are genitive singular
neuter. The twelve were not filled with God, the Holy Spirit. The
men were filled [with] holy spirit. Often the English preposition is
translation of the case of the noun as is the case here where there is
no Greek preposition. The case of the noun is genitive so the editors
supplied "with" to make the connection between filled and holy spirit.
What we read about in Matthew, and Mark, and John which was spoken by
John the Baptist was a prophecy concerning what would take place on
Pentecost. Jesus confirmed the prophecy ten days before Pentecost and
Peter confirmed some time later whan Jesus had said. John's prophecy
spoke about the phenomenon of Pentecost which included a sound as of a
rushing might wind and cloven tongues like as fire visible to the
twelve. It was a phenomenon because that was the one and only time
that form of visible baptism took place. After that people received
the spirit after confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God
raised Jesus from the dead. Following the baptism of the twelve the
miracle of Pentecost occurred when people heard what the apostles
spoke in their own languages. That, too, was a one time event. After
that those who spoke in tongues spoke in a language unknown to the
speaker which would have not been understood by all people of all
languages as what was the case on Pentecost.
Jumping down to Acts 2:38 we have a verse that makes much of the above
more clear.
Act 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
John's baptism was the baptism of repentance; that's what he said it
was in -
Mat 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and {with} fire:
Peter said that people were to (1) repent and (2) be baptized…for the
remission of sins. There is a difference between repent and remission
which is why different words are used. Repent from "metanoeo" means
to perceive afterwards, hence to change one's mind and purpose. It is
an "inside" work accomplished by the one who repents. Peter said,
"change your minds and be baptized…for the remission of sins." What
they were to change their minds about was revealed to them in the
verses preceding Peter's response to their question "what shall we
do?"
Act 2:36 KJV
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 KJV
Now when they heard {this}, they were pricked in their heart, and said
unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men {and} brethren, what
shall we do?
Repent referred to them confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that
God raised Jesus from the dead. Paul confirms this format in Romans
when speaking by revelation from Jesus Christ Paul said -
Rom 10:8-11 KJV
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in
thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
In Acts their hearts were pricked and because their hearts were
pricked they asked what they should so. Peter told them to change
their mind and contextually it would be to change their mind to what
he had just told them. Peter had told them that God had made that
same Jesus that they killed both Lord and Christ (anointed, Messiah).
They needed to confess the man that was dead as Lord and believe that
God raised Jesus from the dead.
Act 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The second thing they needed to do was be baptized for the remission
of sins. This word "remission" is often misunderstood. A certain man
who referred to himself as a pastor often spoke about it meaning
washing away of sins. The Greek word "aphesis" is a legal term that
has nothing to do with water. It means to dismiss, discharge, or set
free. In both the Septuagint and the New Covenant use the word is
used in the same sense. It is the forgiveness of sins on the part of
God and with reference to future judgment; a total remission and
forgiveness excluding all idea of punishment. It is not a washing
away of sins. The word occurs in the following passages where it has
nothing to do with washing. When the word is used in a verse that
speaks about baptism; the baptism has to do with repentance and
remission is the benefit of obedience.
KJV Mat 26:28; Mar 1:4; Mar 3:29; Luk 1:77; Luk 3:3; Luk 4:18; Luk
24:47; Act 2:38; Act 5:31; Act 10:43; Act 13:38; Act 26:18; Eph 1:7;
Col 1:14; Heb 9:22; Heb 10:18.
I will cover a few verses to illustrate what I am saying. You can
look up the rest later.
Mat 26:28 KJV
For this is my blood of the new testament [Gr. diatheke, covenant] ,
which is shed for many for [Gr. eis] the remission of sins.
Here it is blood that is shed for many "eis" the remission of sins.
The preposition "eis" can be expressed as a line drawn to intersect
another line indicating the point to be reached. It denotes motion to
or unto an object with the idea of reaching or touching it; hence "the
goal." The goal for the shedding of the blood was remission of sins
for many. The blood did not remit the sins; God remitted the sins on
account of the sacrifice for sins offered by the Son.
Mar 1:4 KJV
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
repentance for [Gr. eis] the remission of sins.
The goal of John's baptism was an offering so that God could remit the
sins of the person baptized. First, there is a repentance and then
there is remission of sins.
Luk 24:47 KJV
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Act 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Peter spoke about two things (1) repentance and (2) baptism for
remission of sins where repentance came before baptism. The
conjunction "and" from "kai" sets two different things strictly
coordinate apart from each other. But there is a second "and" in the
sentence which makes the first "and" grammaticaly unnecessary. This
tells us that the figure of speech Polysyndeton marks the phrases for
emphasis. Polysyndeton means "Many Ands" and is the use of the
conjunction "and" to form and enumerate a list of things that are
strictly coordinate. We can illustrate what the passage says better
like this:
Act 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them,
(1) Repent,
(2) and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins,
(3) and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
There is something very different about this verse. The last words in
the verse read "tou hagiou pneumatos" (the holy spirit). All of the
words are in the genitive case which is the case of the noun used to
express possession, separation, or agency. What's different is that
this is one of only a few places where "hagion" occurs before
"pneuma" in the Greek. An important habit that a student of the word
of God must get into is watching for patterns in the word of God. The
various forms of "pneuma hagion" occur 89 times in the New Covenant in
that order. There are only few passages were the order is reversed.
1Co 6:19 KJV
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [Gr.
hagiou pneumatos] which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are
not your own?
Hagiou and pneumatos are both common nouns and there is no definite
article before either of them. Thus, the body is the temple of holy
spirit the gift of God which we received from God.
Act 2:38 KJV
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The words "of the Holy Ghost" are translated from "tou (definite
article) hagiou (noun) pneumatos (noun)" - all genitive case. There
is no Greek preposition, "of" is the translation of the case of the
noun. What they would receive would be the gift which comes from the
holy spirit which in this case is the Holy Spirit (God the Giver). So,
if the people would repent and be baptized for the remission of sins
God would give them a gift. But the verse says a lot more than that.
The word receive is from "lambano"; not "dechomai". Big deal, what's
the difference? Dechomai is a subjective reception. John hands you a
cue ball and you hold it in your hands. Lambano is a subjective
reception. John hands you the cue ball and you throw it and hit Mark
in the back of the head; in other words it is doing something with
what is received. They would not only receive the gift; but would use
the gift for the purposes it was given. They would get the same gift
that the apostles got and be able to do with the gift what the
apostles did when they received the gift; aside from the phenomena and
miracle parts.
The word gift needs to be considered because there are many different
Greek words translated "gift" and each has a different meaning. Here
the word gift is from "dorea", a gratuity, a free gift, a present. So,
those that repented and were baptized received and where able to use
the gift that came from God.
There is only one thing left to cover in Acts 2:38. What kind of
baptism was Peter talking about? Was it John's water baptism of
repentance with the goal of remission of sins? Or; was it Jesus'
baptism in holy spirit that Jesus promised? Let's look again at what
Jesus said to the apostles.
Act 1:5 KJV
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost not many days hence.
The conjunction "but" sets what is said before the conjunction in
contrast with what is said after the conjunction. In effect, Jesus
said, the greater shall supersede the lesser. Baptism in holy spirit
would replace water baptism.
And now it is time for people to start pulling their hair out, and
begin screaming, yelling cursing, jumping up and down and shouting
heretic, heretic, heretic. I didn't write the book.
We know that John the Baptist told the truth and that Jesus confirmed
John's words and that Peter confirmed Jesus' words. We also know that
on Pentecost what Jesus promised came to pass. Those of us who have
read Acts know that there are examples of water baptism that occur
after Pentecost. But those of us who have read all the way to the
eleventh chapter know something that those who got stuck in the first
ten chapters don't know. What was Peter referring to when he spoke
these words:
Act 11:16 KJV
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
The first word in the verse gives a good clue. It speaks of a time
when something occurred. What occurred was that Peter remembered what
Jesus' had said ten days before Pentecost on the day of the ascension.
Since Peter repeated what Jesus said, I will repeat what I said about
what Jesus said:
The conjunction "but" sets what is said before the conjunction in
contrast with what is said after the conjunction. In effect, Jesus
said, the greater shall supersede the lesser. Baptism in holy spirit
would replace water baptism.
Why did Peter remember what he remembered "then"? Because something
happened before "then" and Peter was explaining what happened that led
to him remembering what he remembered. Remember that you should
remember that this is one of the apostles that Jesus spoke the
following words to about remembering.
Joh 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The verse should read "But the Comforter,[which is] holy spirit, whom
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto
you."
By the way, the antecedent for the pronoun "he" is not spirit. A
pronoun must agree in number and gender with its antecedent. The
pronoun eikinos is nominative singular masculine and pneuma (spirit)
is nominative singular neuter. Those who say the pronoun "he" makes
"spirit" masculine are wrong because the Greek pronouns antecedent is
not "pneuma"; but is "parakletos" (comforter) which is nominative
singular masculine and has concord with the pronoun. The pronoun "he"
refers back to the Comforter. The words holy spirit describe the
subject which is the Comforter.
On Pentecost Peter received the Comforter which is the holy spirit
which would bring all things to remembrance whatsoever Jesus said to
them. Sometime after Pentecost the Comforter brought what Jesus said
to his remembrance. So, that's another prophecy spoken by Jesus that
came to pass.
Before we look at the context which concerns what led up to Peter
remembering. There is something worth mentioning that will make the
book of Acts easier to understand. God did not give Acts the name
"Acts" or "Acts of the Apostles", or "Acts of the Holy Spirit" men did
that long after it was written. Book titles are derived from the
first few words in the book. Another way to look at Acts is as a
treatise divided into eight sections that show the rise and expansion
of the first century church from Jerusalem. Acts speaks about a lot
more than what the apostles did. If we look at the eight steps into
which Acts is divided into we can better see how the church of God
grew. I have the following summary verse numbers penned in the margin
of my Nelson's wide margin KJV Bible:
Sections:
1. 2:47
2. 6:7
3. 9:31
4. 11:21
5. 12:24
6. 16:5
7. 19:20
8. 28:31
Summary verses:
Act 2:47 KJV
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.
People were added to the church in Jerusalem.
Act 6:7 KJV
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples
multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith.
Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem
Act 9:31 KJV
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in
the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.
Churches were multiplied Judaea and Galilee and Samaria as the church
expanded.
Act 11:21 KJV
And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed,
and turned unto the Lord.
Great number of Gentiles believed.
Act 12:24 KJV
But the word of God grew and multiplied.
First people were added to churches, then disciples were multiplied,
then churches came to be in other places in Israel, then the Gentiles
came in, then the word of God grew and multiplied.
Act 16:5 KJV
And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in
number daily.
Churches were established and increased in number DAILY.
Act 19:20 KJV
So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
Maybe some books were written?
Act 28:31 KJV
Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern
the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
The free movement of the word of God.
I showed you that so that you could see that the "then" when Peter
remembered occurred between Acts 9:31 and Acts 11:21 after the church
had begin to grow and that it happened when the Gentiles were
incorporated into the church. At that time the church was all Jew
and did Jew things such as circumcision and baptism. But Peter via
revelation was told to witness to Gentiles and he did as he was told.
When Peter got to Jerusalem, he got called on the carpet. Acts 11
tells how Peter explained what happened to the leaders in Jerusalem.
Act 11:1 KJV
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the
Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Here the word received (from dechomai) is a subjective reception. They
were supposed to receive (lambano an objective reception) the gift but
had "also" (like the Jews) received the word of God.
Act 11:2 KJV
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the
circumcision contended with him,
Peter starts the church with his preaching and goes out witnessing all
over the place and even brings the Gentiles into the body while James
the brother of Jesus and the other leaders sat in Jerusalem. When
Peter returns with the good news, they contended (diakrino, withdrew
from, judged him) with him. That's what happens sometimes when some
one tries to do the word and does it; religious people will withdraw
from you. It happens to me all the time when religious people are
unable to comprehend what I share with them. I can easily imagine how
some religious types will withdraw from me for writing this. But when
they do I remember a couple of passages that deal with putting up with
religious people.
Act 5:29 KJV
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey
God rather than men.
Gal 1:10 KJV
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if
I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Then there is the sections in 1 Thes 2, Rom 8:8, 1 Thes 4:1, and Heb
11:6 that deal with pleasing God.
The first thing unrighteous men do towards the righteous is begin to
separate themselves and then start charging the righteous with
unrighteous acts which they are usually guilty of themselves.
Act 11:3 KJV
Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
But, Peter had things under control because after all he was a
spiritual man of God dealing with nothing more significant than some
religious people. He had been out in the field contending for peoples
lives and when he got back home the religious fundamentalists
contended with him. But he was prepared and dealt with them quite
easily.
Act 11:4-13 KJV
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it
by order unto them, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision,
A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from
heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw
fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things,
and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any
time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath
cleansed, that call not thou common.
10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into
heaven.
11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto
the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover
these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's
house:
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which
stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose
surname is Peter;
Notice that the angel did not reconcile the men to God. The ministry
of reconciliation was given to the church; not angels. In this case
an angel was sent to direct the man to Peter so that he could be
reconciled to God.
Act 11:14 KJV
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be
saved.
Act 11:15 KJV
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the
beginning.
This is one of the places the editors of the King James Version really
messed up. In fact, the word set "to pneuma to hagion" (including the
various case forms) occurs 22 times and every time is translated
wrong. That means they were wrong 100% of the time. Here is how the
commited this particular fallacy of accent. The word set "to pneuma
to hagion" is made up of definite article, noun, definite article,
noun. In Greek the definite article precedes the noun and the
adjective follows the noun as in "to pneuma hagion" (definite article,
noun, adjective). In English the word order is definite article,
adjective, noun. So, to make this happen the editors move the
adjective to a position between the definite article so that words are
in English grammatical order. Hence, "to pneuma hagion" becomes "the
holy spirit" where "holy" is the adjective. If the editors want you
to think that "the holy spirit" refers to God, they convert the
adjective and noun to a proper adjective and a proper noun by
capitalizing the words to produce "the Holy Spirit" (the KJV editors
used Ghost instead of Spirit). When the verse they are expounding
speaks about God, then what they did is correct. If the passage is
speaking about the gift, then what they did is incorrect and is a
fallacy of accent because they accented the words to present a fact
that is not factual.
Here's the problem with the 22 passages that they messed up. The word
hagion is not an adjective in the word set "to pneuma to hagion" and
therefore cannot be moved to before pneuma. In Greek, an adjective
becomes a noun when it is preceded by the definite article. Because
hagion is a noun in the word set ""to pneuma to hagion" it cannot be
moved to the front of pneuma. So, how did the editors get around the
laws of grammar to express what they wanted readers to read rather
than what God wanted readers to read? Simple, they dropped the second
definite article and converted hagion from a noun to an adjective. The
words should be translated "the spirit the holy" (which can be
understood as "the spirit the holy (spirit)" which is the gift of God;
not God the Giver. In their attempt to defeat God and misrepresent
what God said, they committed a serious fallacy of accent twenty two
times. Were they able to deceive all the people all the time with
their trickery? No, but deceiving all the people all of the time was
not their goal. They were not stupid men. They knew that their
scholar buddies wouldn't be tricked, but they also knew that their
scholar buddies were Trinitarians who would keep their mouth shut so
that the false doctrine of the Trinity could be promoted
The Greek translated as "the Holy Ghost" reads "to pneuma to hagion"
which is the strongest form of the expression because both pneuma and
hagion are emphasized by the definite article. When the definite
article is placed before an adjective, the adjective becomes a noun.
The verse should read: "And as I began to speak, the spirit the holy
fell on them, as on us at the beginning." You should have noticed that
since hagion is a noun it was not moved to the front of pneuma because
it is not an adjective. The spirit the holy is not God the Giver (the
Holy Ghost) but is the gift of God.
Act 11:16 KJV
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
And of course we know from earlier that verse 16 should read: "Then
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in holy spirit.
Act 11:17 KJV
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand
God?
Act 11:18 KJV
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified
God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance
unto life.
So Peter calmed down the religious types and things were hunky dory
for a while.
All that to show you that it took time, many years, for the apostles
to learn the word of God. God did not drop all of the word of God in
the apostles laps on the day of Pentecost. It took time for the word
of God to grow and prevail. In fact, that statement comes after
Peter's visit to Jerusalem, after the Gentiles were added to the
church. When Peter appeared before those of the circumcision they
were worried about cutting and eating. It was no wonder they were
still using John's baptism.
Act 12:24 KJV
But the word of God grew and multiplied.
What you may not have noticed was something that Peter told them about
what happened to the Gentiles which correctly translated reads:
Acts 11:15
And as I began to speak, the spirit the holy fell on them, as on us at
the beginning
Did Peter baptize the gentiles with water after John's manner or did
he remember what Jesus had said? There was really no reason to
because peter said that "the spirit the holy" fell on them as on the
apostles at the beginning. In other words, Peter saw evidence of the
spirit in the form of at least one of the manifestations of the
spirit. To answer the question we need to go back and read from
chapter ten. It is a wonderful chapter full of lots of information
that is very good to know.
Act 10:44 KJV
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them
which heard the word.
Yep, the editors blew it again "the Holy Ghost" is from "to pneuma to
hagion" and should read "the spirit the holy". God did not fall on
the men that heard; the gift of God did (faith cometh by hearing the
word of God).
Act 10:45 KJV
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many
as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Yep, the editors messed up again. Here "the Holy Ghost" is from "tou
pneumatos tou hagiou" (the spirit the holy) (genitive singular neuter
which is where "of" comes from). What was poured out was the spirit
the holy which is the gift of God. How did they know the Gentiles had
received the gift?
Act 10:46 KJV
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered
Peter,
The saw and heard a manifestation of the spirit wherein they magnified
God.
Act 10:47 KJV
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 KJV
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then
prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The question is, was the command ever carried out. Did they water
baptize the Gentiles? All we know is what Peter said later to the
circumcision. But keep in mind that Acts 11:1 begins with "and"
continuing chapter 10.
Act 11:16 KJV
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 KJV
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand
God?
The word "pneuma" occurs 381 times in the Greek new Covenant. These
are the 139 verses from the KJV where "the" precedes spirit or holy
spirit when there is no definite article before pneuma in the Greek.
Mat 01:18, Mat 01:20, Mat 03:11, Mat 12:28, Mat 12:31, Mat 26:41, Mat
28:19, Mar 01:08, Mar 14:38, Luk 01:15, Luk 01:17, Luk 01:35, Luk
01:41, Luk 01:67, Luk 02:25, Luk 03:16, Luk 04:01, Luk 04:18, Luk
04:36, Luk 11:13, Luk 12:10, Luk 12:12, Joh 01:33, Joh 03:05, Joh
20:22, Act 01:02, Act 01:05, Act 01:08, Act 02:04, Act 02:38, Act
04:08, Act 04:31, Act 06:03, Act 06:05, Act 07:55, Act 08:15, Act
08:17, Act 08:19, Act 08:39, Act 09:17, Act 09:31, Act 10:38, Act
10:45, Act 11:16, Act 11:24, Act 13:09, Act 13:52, Act 16:06, Rom
01:04, Rom 02:29, Rom 05:05, Rom 08:01, Rom 08:05, Rom 08:09, Rom
08:10, Rom 08:13, Rom 08:14, Rom 08:15, Rom 08:15, Rom 09:01, Rom
11:08, Rom 14:17, Rom 15:13, Rom 15:16, Rom 15:19, 1Co 02:04, 1Co
02:10, 1Co 02:13, 1Co 04:21, 1Co 06:19, 1Co 07:40, 1Co 12:03, 1Co
12:03, 1Co 14:02, 1Co 14:16, 1Co 14:32, 2Co 01:22, 2Co 03:03, 2Co
03:06, 2Co 03:06, 2Co 03:18, 2Co 06:06, Gal 03:03, Gal 04:29, Gal
05:05, Gal 05:16, Gal 05:17, Gal 05:18, Gal 05:25, Gal 05:25, Gal
06:01, Eph 01:17, Eph 02:22, Eph 03:05, Eph 05:09, Eph 05:18, Eph
06:18, Php 02:01, Php 03:03, Col 01:08, 1Th 01:05, 1Th 01:06, 2Th
02:13, 1Ti 03:16, 2Ti 01:07, 2Ti 01:14, Tit 03:05, Heb 02:04, Heb
06:04, Heb 12:23, Jas 02:26, 1Pe 01:02, 1Pe 01:11, 1Pe 01:12, 1Pe
1:22, 1Pe 03:18, 1Pe 03:19, 1Pe 04:06, 1Pe 04:14, 2Pe 01:21, Jud
01:19, Jud 01:20, Rev 01:10, Rev 04:02, Rev 11:11, Rev 16:14, Rev
17:03, Rev 21:10.
These are the 22 verses where the word set "to pneuma to hagion" (or
equivalent) occurs in the New Covenant and should translated "the
spirit the holy" (the gift of God) but is translated "the Holy Ghost"
(God the Giver):
Mat 12:32, Mar 03:29, Luk 02:26, Luk 03:22, Joh 14:26, Act 01:16, Act
02:33, Act 05:32, Act 07:51, Act 10:44, Act 10:47, Act 11:15, Act
13:02, Act 15:08, Act 15:28, Act 19:06, Act 20:23, Act 20:28, Act
21:11, 1Co 02:14, Heb 03:07, Heb 09:08, Heb 10:15, ,
********************************************************
End of article
Indeed "the key to properly translating prepositonal phrases is to
rely on context as a means of expressing the meaning." And a big clue
to what the context refers to is the words used.
Mat 3:11 KJV
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and {with} fire:
Step one is to read the words in the verse. Here we see that John is
contrasting himself with Jesus and his baptism with Jesus' baptism.
John states that he is the lesser and Jesus is the greater. John
states that his baptism is the lesser and that Jesus' baptism is the
greater. The adversative conjunction "but" marks a contrast and
reveals an antithesis. So, when we get to "with the Holy Ghost, and
{with} fire" we know that the context has to do with what Jesus would
do at a time future from the time John spoke the words.
Within that context is the prepositional phrase "with the Holy Ghost"
which in Greek reads "en pneumati hagioo"; literally "in spirit holy"
where spirit is a noun and hagioo is an adjective. The preposition
"in" shows the the time or spacial relationship between what is before
the preposition and what is after the preposition.
Carl's imaginary scholar continued saying:
Bible Bob preferred a translation with the preposition indicating the
place or sphere in which something happens (in the Holy Spirit and
fire).
Carl's imaginary friend stated what Bible Bob preferred without
knowing what Bible Bob preferred. God types like this think they know
all the thoughts of everyone. Carl could have siimply said " Bible
Bob translated the preposition indicating the place or sphere in which
something happens (in the Holy Spirit and fire)." But Carl had to add
"Bible Bob preferred" which is a good indicator of jus who Carl's
imaginary friend is.
It just so happens that the words "en pneumati hagioo" literally mean
"in spirit holy". That's is a word for word "translation" not Bible
Bob's preferred translation. Next, Carl's imaginary friend said:
"His translation of the preposition is based on an unwarranted
restriction of the meaning of the preposition, which results in an
unlikely conclusion."
That is called lying. In the sentence before that Carl said:
"Bible Bob translated the preposition indicating the place or sphere
in which something happens (in the Holy Spirit and fire)."
What does the Greek preposition "en" mean? It means "in" indicating
the place or sphere in which comething happens. So, BB literally
translated the phrase correctly according to Carl's imaginary friend.
Earlier Carl's imaginary friend had said:
"Bible Bob examined the use of the prepositional en pneumati agiw kai
puri (en with the dative case) in Matt 3:11" which confirms what BB
said about "en" being in the dative case. That's the only case it can
be in because that is the only case it governs. Below is the source
of the definition:
viii. en governs only one case (the Dative), and denotes being or
remaining within, with the primary idea of rest and continuance. It
has regard to place and space (e.g. Matt. 10:16. Luke 5:16), or
sphere of action (e.g. Matt. 14:2. Rom. 1:5, 8; 6:4).
It is also used for the efficient cause as emanating from within, and
hence has sometimes the force of by, denoting the instrument, with,
passing on to union and fellowship; en denoting inclusion, and sun
(No. xvi, below) denoting conjunction. En denotes also continuance in
time (Matt. 2:1; 27:40. John 11:10).
2. with plural = among.
But BB reads words in the context in which they are used and refrains
from waxing philosophical like Carl's imaginary friend. You see BB
read the first part of the verse where it said "I indeed baptize you
with water unto repentance" and BB being the great (but modest)
intellectual that he is, asked "How did John baptize" and low a voice
from heaven answered "in water" my beloved son in whom I am well
pleased. And BB continued meditating upon the word of God and asked
"did he sprinkle or dip" and low a voice from heaven said, my beloved
son you are getting on my last nerve, you know he submerged the people
in the water. To which BB replied, thanks Pops.
No. What did happen was BB asked himself how John baptized people and
the answer which was, John submerged people in water. So,
contextually, "in" holy spirit is the Jesus version of Johns "in"
water. Of course, BB is right because the preposition "with" in
John's water statemnt is "en" which means "in"; not "with" in the
sense it is used. John baptized people in water.
The so called Greek expert of Carl's also said the following (Remember
this is supposed to be a big time Greek scholar saying what Carl is
saying):
When considered in context, the prepositional phrase is best
translated as indicating the instrument or means by which something is
accomplished, hence, the grammatically and contextually correct
translation "with the Holy Spirit and fire."
Either the man told an out and out deliberate lie (which he did) or he
doesn't know his butt from a whole in the ground about Greek. In his
defense he probably knows about Greek resturants and bars where he
hung out at rather than attending Greek classes. In further defense,
let's face it a student is the fruit of a teacher and if the teacher
of the student is a lousy teacher, the the student might end up as
dumb as this guy.
You did notice that he said "is best translated". That is what we
call an opinion which happens to be from a paid denominational flunky
who is loyal to his paycheck, not God.
Do you see the words "instrument or means". Those words prove how
ignorant this guy is. Even if by some miracle the guy has a degree;
he is nothing more than a lacky who would say anything for a buck.
What he is saying is that water or spirit are the instrument or means
by which baptism is accomplished. I showed you that earlier. But
what it boils down to "is best translated" and the choice of English
prepositions is "in" or "with". While with would point to the
instrument it does not convey the sense of the accomplishment. When a
person is submerged in water, he goes in dirty and comes out clean.
Being in the water is what procudes the clean person. When a person
is baptized in spirit, he goes in dirty and comes out clean and in
this case purified by fire. This time the cleansing is not external;
but both internal and external. So, "in" is the correct preposition
to use.
What they did to try to sucker you was try to fool you into thinking
he was a Greek scholar, then made false assertions, and then came up
with a wrong conclusion. The preposition "with" represents the "sub
meaning" of "en" while "in" represents the actual meaning. I suppose
one could understand the passage to mean "in water with water" but God
did not word it that way. On Pentecost when the apostles were
baptized cloven tongues like as fire "appeared" unto them. That was
the outside purification (fire is a purifier in the Bible). Then it
says " they were all filled with the Hol Ghost" which denotes an
inside work that cleanses the inside. No more blood of bulls to
cleanse the outside; nor more ceremonial clean on the outside, cleaned
on the inside. The word "with" in "with the Holy Ghost" is the
translation of the verb "pletho" which means "filled". The editors
added the "with" to complete the sense as they understood the sense.
Act 2:4 KJV
And they were all filled {with} holy spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
There is no definite article before spirit (pneuma) in the Greek and
no justification for converting the adjective to a proper adjective or
the noun to a proper noun. They were filled with holy spirtit; not
with God. They received the gift of God; not God the Giver. How
could a man's body hold God?
What you guys don't understand why the enemies of God stand against
Bible Bob. What Bible Bob revealed in the article he wrote was that
all of these so called religious leaders are frauds who are students
of frauds who were students of fraud, etc. The original frauds were
wimps unable to enjoy the power and love of God in their lives. They
could not do what real men of God did so they came up with false
doctrines along the lines of, God stopped being God when the last
apostle died which is why we can only collect and spend money and
cannot do what the apostles did. Well, of course they could not come
right out and say that God stopped being God so they lied and said;
when the last apostle died church leaders lost their powers; but they
couldn't say that either so they said when the Bible was finished a
new dispensation began; hence drawing your attention away from their
weakness towards a complicated bunch of junk people would give up
trying to learn. It was easier for the minions to accept what their
money grubbing masters told them to think.
Then one day, along came Bible Bob who calls people back to God's word
and tells them and shows them what the Bible actually says. Satan
hates that and contacts his employees and slaves and tells them to be
mean to BB.
Carl, you are so dumb. All you had to do was be honest. If you
didn't understand, ask. If you did understand but beleived otherwise,
then say so and show why you think I am wrong. Don't show everybody
that yuou are an effiminate eunuch that has to go crying to someone
for help.
Carl, don't put your friends in situations like you did this guy if he
is real. That's not right. You use people for your own gain and that
is wrong. You aren't smart enough to present information in a way
that can change anyone's mind. I suspect that if there was an
educated man that wrote the paragraph, I suspect that he wrote more
and you cherry picked and wrote what you wrote. You like to pretend
you are God and using a man's words out of context is the norm for you
because you are a very dishonest person.
To the guy that Carl says he is quoting.
Please excuse the hyperbole if it offeneded you but that's the way I
like to write. In plain English, I think Carl misrepresented the
situation as he usually does. Your comments were appreciated (yes
they were because I like studying the word and your comments allowed
me to do some more studying) but I disagree with your conclusion. You
and I apparently come from two different schools of thought; I was
taught that the word of God is accurate and that it means what it
says. You seem to come from the Methodist persuasion where the Bible
is literature and history and Jesus is historical and the resurrection
is a myth. I attended a Methodist college. Quite frankly their
courses "sucked" because they were all about human intellect and "look
how smart I am" rather than about God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the
word of God. They taught doctrines of men and devils; not the word of
God. So, you and I will look at things from different perspectives.
Mine are more likely to be right than yours because mine come from the
word of God and yours from philosophy about religious matters.
My email address is biblebob@saintly.com./ Feel free to email me and
say whatever you want. Apparently you do not want people to be filled
with holy spirit so that they can be free of sin and sin consciousness
which enslaves people and you don't want people sure of their eternal
life. That does not make for good mind numbed robots that will turn
over their cash without questions. I am going to say what I want to
say and I offer you the chance to do the same thing. So drop me a
line.
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
