-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The importance of reading
- Thread starter 4His_glory
- Start date
So now your calling me a liar, not that it is anything new remembering past conversations with you though. However I will again remind you that it is against BB rules to do so.
There is nothing 'evasive' about what I stated. It is a simple fact.
My posting on here isn't subject to grading nor is it necessary for me to spell check, punctuate, or anything else. I can post however I like and whatever I like as long as it is within BB rules.
Yes it is, and merciful as well.
I asked the question first.
As to what it has to do with this? Nothing really, it was just a rhetorical question but it sure has you all up in knots over it
It can't be proven and that is why I stated immediately after 'my' argument.
I found some more quotes.
New Bible Commentary edited by Wenham, Motyer, carson and France.
p. 1310: "What these were it is impossible to say."
New Testament Commentary by Hendrikensen and Kistemaker.
p. 323 [ After saying that primarily it was the Word of God ] : 'For the rest, as to exact contents, we simply do not know, and it is useless to add to the guesses that have been made."
The NIV Application Commentary by Walter Liefeld ( who I met and heard preach/lecture more than 30 years ago).
p. 298 : "We do not know the contents of the parchments that Paul requested."
Barnes' Notes : It is impossible to determine what books are meant here.
Arno Clement Gaebelin : We do not know what those books and parchments were.
So, far from what you have claimed as the majority view, a number of commentators are against your opinion.
New Bible Commentary edited by Wenham, Motyer, carson and France.
p. 1310: "What these were it is impossible to say."
New Testament Commentary by Hendrikensen and Kistemaker.
p. 323 [ After saying that primarily it was the Word of God ] : 'For the rest, as to exact contents, we simply do not know, and it is useless to add to the guesses that have been made."
The NIV Application Commentary by Walter Liefeld ( who I met and heard preach/lecture more than 30 years ago).
p. 298 : "We do not know the contents of the parchments that Paul requested."
Barnes' Notes : It is impossible to determine what books are meant here.
Arno Clement Gaebelin : We do not know what those books and parchments were.
So, far from what you have claimed as the majority view, a number of commentators are against your opinion.
Allan : "It is the same thing I most always do to you when you start your garbage."
Rippon in reply : "Is the above supposed to show your grace?"
Allan in response : "Yes, it is, and merciful as well."
To which I answer :"Pure silliness. So I suppose if someone tells you that you are 'starting your garbage again' you will then thank them for their grace and mercy?! That's why you register so low on the sincerity meter.
Rippon in reply : "Is the above supposed to show your grace?"
Allan in response : "Yes, it is, and merciful as well."
To which I answer :"Pure silliness. So I suppose if someone tells you that you are 'starting your garbage again' you will then thank them for their grace and mercy?! That's why you register so low on the sincerity meter.
4His_glory
New Member
Here are some more commentaries in regards to the books and parchments.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
4:13. Again little is known of Carpus or the cloak . . . scrolls, or parchments mentioned here. Such glimpses into the daily life of the apostle are intriguing, but any attempts to suggest what the documents might have contained, for example, are purely speculative.
Word Studies in the NT (Vincent):
As to the character and contents of these documents which Timothy is requested to bring, we are of course entirely ignorant.
Interestingly, Calvin mentions nothing as to the content of the parchments and books but rather to the reason behind Paul's request.
Calvin's Commentary
" It is evident from this, that the Apostle had not given over reading, though he was already preparing for death. Where are those who think that they have made so great progress that they do not need any more exercise? Which of them will dare to compare himself with Paul? Still more does this expression refute the madness of those men who -- despising books, and condemning all reading -- boast of nothing but their own ejnqousiasmou<v divine inspirations. 3 But let us know that this passage gives to all believers 4 a recommendation of constant reading, that they may profit by it. 5"
It would seem to me that Spurgeon may have been influenced by Calvin's commentary when preparing his sermon on this text.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary:
4:13. Again little is known of Carpus or the cloak . . . scrolls, or parchments mentioned here. Such glimpses into the daily life of the apostle are intriguing, but any attempts to suggest what the documents might have contained, for example, are purely speculative.
Word Studies in the NT (Vincent):
As to the character and contents of these documents which Timothy is requested to bring, we are of course entirely ignorant.
Interestingly, Calvin mentions nothing as to the content of the parchments and books but rather to the reason behind Paul's request.
Calvin's Commentary
" It is evident from this, that the Apostle had not given over reading, though he was already preparing for death. Where are those who think that they have made so great progress that they do not need any more exercise? Which of them will dare to compare himself with Paul? Still more does this expression refute the madness of those men who -- despising books, and condemning all reading -- boast of nothing but their own ejnqousiasmou<v divine inspirations. 3 But let us know that this passage gives to all believers 4 a recommendation of constant reading, that they may profit by it. 5"
It would seem to me that Spurgeon may have been influenced by Calvin's commentary when preparing his sermon on this text.
You said this in your post numbered 21. You had meant to say :...weren't secular..."
In your post #33 you said "Nope" to my question as to whether you had dropped your silly argument about when Paul found out about the poets he referenced in Acts 17:21. It was clear that you were rooting for Paul to have found out about those poet quotes in his pre-conversion days for some unexplained reason which you have yet to reveal.
Then in your post #44 you stated :"As to what it has to do with? Nothing really, it was just a rhetorical question... It can't be proven and that is why I stated immediately after 'my' argument."
A rhetorical question is usually one sentence said for effect. You asked one question with three follow-up sentences -- hardly rhetorical.
Just what is acceptable? Maybe you have said some of the following yourself :
I don't believe you.
That's absurd and you know it.
You're just making that up.
That's false.
You are bearing false witness.
That's untrue.
I find that rather incredible, to say the least.
I don't buy that.
You really don't mean that.
That's just not the case.
You are wrong.
[ Or the quite insipid ] You are mistaken.