Brother Bob said:
Joe said:
Also the medium told Saul that he would deliver up Israel and Saul at the had of the Phillistines, so he knew he would likely suffer during his death the following day. That is why, imo, Saul immediately fell full length to the ground and was dreadfully afraid. He had no strength because he fasted that day .
I think it was God chastising Saul for consulting the witch. Thanks for the link
Why do you all always have to run back to "under the Law" or before. Why can you not prove your case by using the New Testament?
Not to particularly 'defend' Joe, but he was answering a question posed by Marcia, here. To my knowledge, the NT does not have any reference to Saul and the witch, so one can hardly quote from it to answer this question. However, Jesus said "
The Scriptures cannot be broken." (), and Paul writes "
All Scripture is God-breathed-out, and is profitable for doctrine, ...", both of which are found in the NT, and there are hundreds of references and quotes, from the OT in the NT writings, so I would offer that since Jesus both quoted from it, and referred to it, and every NT writer also referred to the OT, as well, that is a good enough reason to cite from the OT, here. In only two instances, one by Peter, and one by Paul, are NT Scriptures specifically referred to, to my knowledge off the top of my head, by the NT writers, and I have earlier in this thread, referred to the citation by Peter. The earliest of those known as "the Church Fathers" also give multiple references to, and citations from the OT Scriptures, as well, with the notable exceptions of one of your own theological heroes, here, namely "Marcion, the Heretic." I don't particularly want to be identified with one whose own identifying name includes the designation of "the Heretic," but maybe that's just me. BTW, this is not some sneaky 'sideways dig', but this is the first 'Father' noted for his vehement opposition to any "millennialism" or "chiliaism", which is consistent with your own views, on this subject . He is also the first indvidual to attempt to "write his own Bible" to conform with his views, by 'cutting and hacking out' the parts he did not like. Anyway, continuing -
They also made molten calves to worship, do the Christians do that today?
In the sense of "have idols," yes. Paul twice identifies coveting as "idolatry" (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5), and writes to not do this, in Col. 3:5, and the last words written in I John are (for believers) "
Little children, keep yourselves from idols." (I Jo. 5:21)
If the OT was suffecient (sic), then Christ would not have come.
I don't believe these words are said, however, it is written that "
for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal. 5:22
b)
Every time you run back to the OT, to try and justify something under the NT, I hardly ever read it.
Consistency, here, is not exactly your long-suit in this, when one "runs back to the OT, to try and justify something" though, is it? It appears you are known to do the same thing, if such suits you, as well. From this thread, alone -
You just act like some scripture does not mean anything don't you? (Post # 24, My emphasis - Remember these words you wrote, for they could return to haunt you! - Ed)
Choose ye this day, whom ye shall serve?? (Post # 28 - Those words comes from Josh. 24:15
a since you put this in the form of a question. Nothing remotely close to this wording is found in the NT.)
Job 27:8 For what [is] the hope of the hypocrite, though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul? (Post # 104 - Job is found in the OT, in my Bible, not the NT)
David did not have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. God even turned on David and took his son, so don't tell me about David, he was under the Law covenant. (Post # 194 - You are giving an OT reference here, to David, as to what you are implying about 'taking his son.')
This is from 3 posts, where you have "run back to the OT to justify something under the NT", in this thread, alone. I am fairly certain I could find another three more

, were I inclined to seek such, considering you have made over 12,500 posts, on the BB.
The word Hypocrite was used many times in scripture I ask you why was the word "dissemble" used in Gal? Must of (sic) been a reason.
I already gave one possible reason the KJV translators chose the words "dissemble" and "dissimulation" in post #237. I also noted that "hupokrites" is uniformly rendered as "hypocrisy" in every other usage in the NT in the WEB, and the KJV translators only rendered this as "dissimulation" in Gal. 2:13. This verse is the sole occurance of "sunupokrinomai" in the entire NT, and this verse is rendered as
13 And other Jews consented to his feigning, so that Barnabas was drawn of them into that feigning. (WYC - 1382, 'Purvey' revision, 1388, modern spelling, Noble, 2001)
13 and the other Jewes dissembled likewise, In so much that Barnabas was brought into their simulation also. (TNT - 1525, modern spelling, ??)
13, And the other Iewes played the hypocrites likewise with him, in so much that Barnabas was led away with them by that their hypocrisie. (Geneva Bible, 1587)
13 And the other Iewes dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was caried away with their dissimulation. (KJV - 1611)
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (KJV - 'Blaney' redo, 1769)
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; so that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (AKJV n.d. - Uh' - which KJV were you quoting, again, since I forget?? But I digress.)
13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. (RSV, 1946)
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (NASB, 1960)
13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (NIV, 1973)
13 Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (HCSB, 1999)
13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. (NKJV, 1982)
13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (ESV,2001)
Why did the KJV translators "change" the words (back?)
to "dissemble" and "dissimulation" from some previous version(s), notably the Geneva? It obviously is/was not always rendered in English, as "dissemble", and, in fact, sometimes has been rendered as "hypocrisy" for 420+ years. Instead, how about admitting this is 'translator preference' in view of the day-to-day spoken language?
Was it just because Paul was angry, or was it because God was angry.
This snide, slurring question does not deserve a response, and I will debase neither the Word of God, nor myself, to offer one!
Ed