Have you heard the voice of God? Or, if He talks, what ways do you hear Him?

[agedman]

Agedman

In 2 pet 3:16-18 Peter calls Paul's writing scripture.

The phrase in question is this, " the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures,"

That phrase WOULD show Peter calling Paul's writing Scriptures EXCEPT for the statement just previous to that phrase.

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures,..."​

What was it that the "untaught and unstable distort?" The "things" which both Peter and Paul had written about.

What "things?" The things found in Scriptures that Peter and Paul had written about.

Does then Peter call Paul's writing Scriptures?

No more than I could call the writing of Iconoclast Scriptures when writing about the things of Scriptures being distorted by members of the BB.

 

[agedman]

2 Peter 3:15 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).

Paul's writing placed with "the rest of the scriptures" by Peter writing under Inspiration.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox treading out grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his reward."

The last quote, called "Scripture" is found in Luke 10:7.

The New Testament quotes itself as Scripture. QED

T.
First:
Peter is stating that the "unlearned and unstable" distort the THINGS that both he and Paul have written are what is distorted. NOT the writing of Paul, but what Paul wrote about.

Peter does not call Paul a writer of Scriptures.

Second:
Paul is quoting the OT in the leter to Timothy and calling that quote Scripture - not his own writing Scripture.

Third:

I think you may be thinking of another text, because:

7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.​

Doesn't mention Scriptures.

 

[agedman]

Please, if anyone notices non-Baptists posting in these section, use the report button. We can then communicate with the member advising them of our policies.

I personally don't care who posts where (not to offend the policies) because it gives opportunity to address issues to those "outside the camp."

As is done, when one is communicating, it is wise (imo) to overlook a person's affiliation and deal more with the issue of the thread.

Isn't that what edification is all about?

What should be reported is a person who supports something contrary to the statement of faith of the BB.

But, there is that rule about having to be "Baptist, " so that keeps part of the "Baptist" board a holy huddle in which some posts do not reflect much holiness.

 

[TCassidy]

Peter does not call Paul a writer of Scriptures.

Yes, he does, as I showed you from the bible. Believe it or reject it, your choice.

I think you may be thinking of another text, because:
7 Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.
Doesn't mention Scriptures.

Duh! Paul quotes Luke's statement as scripture.

 

[TCassidy]

No. You seem to have forgotten the original question.

Duh! I quoted the original question.
Have you heard the voice of God?

 

[Internet Theologian]

The phrase in question is this, " the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures,"

That phrase WOULD show Peter calling Paul's writing Scriptures EXCEPT for the statement just previous to that phrase.

"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures,..."​

What was it that the "untaught and unstable distort?" The "things" which both Peter and Paul had written about.

What "things?" The things found in Scriptures that Peter and Paul had written about.

Does then Peter call Paul's writing Scriptures?

No more than I could call the writing of Iconoclast Scriptures when writing about the things of Scriptures being distorted by members of the BB.

Brother, with all due respect you're simply trying anything just to remain right. You are errant here, and what you say is actually wresting the Scriptures yourself. Do you have to be right that badly?

 

[agedman]

Yes, he does, as I showed you from the bible. Believe it or reject it, your choice.Duh! Paul quotes Luke's statement as scripture.

Brother, with all due respect you're simply trying anything just to remain right. You are errant here, and what you say is actually wresting the Scriptures yourself. Do you have to be right that badly?

Ok, I am old, but no matter how I diagram the structure of the sentences, not a single passages point other that to the Scriptures as the Apostles new them to be - the OT.

So, please, look at the structure of the references again, and look for what is actually being addressed: Paul, Peter, the people, or the Scriptures delivered to the people by Paul and Peter.

I have no desire to be right all the time, or even badly.

I just am, in my old age, merely loosing dendrites., but I don't know that I am because the links no longer exist.

 

[Internet Theologian]

By the way, the verse is saying 'just as they do to the remaining Scriptures' (loipoi 'remaining ones') which clearly shows Paul's writings as Scripture.

It would be absurd for Peter to be saying all that they were doing was twisting some letters Paul had written, and then in the same context use the reference to Scriptures, and call them 'remaining ones'.

The comment 'distort them', as they do to the 'remaining ones' (other Scriptures) and giving a solemn warning and condemnation, shows clearly Paul's writings were in fact Scriptures themselves and on the same level 'as the rest'.

Here is some commentary and there is plenty more:

'...and unstable; unsettled in their principles, who are like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine; the root of the matter is not in them; nor are they rooted and built up in Christ, and so are not established in the faith; they are not upon the foundation Christ, nor do they build upon, and abide by the sure word of God, or form their notions according to it, but according to their own carnal reasonings, and fleshly lusts; and so

wrest the word of God, distort it from its true sense and meaning, and make it speak that which it never designed; dealing with it as innocent persons are sometimes used, put upon a rack, and tortured, and so forced to speak what is contrary to their knowledge and consciences; and so were the words of the Apostle Paul wrested by ill designing men, as about the doctrines of grace and works, so concerning the coming of Christ; see Rom_3:8;

as they do also the other Scriptures; the writings of Moses, and the prophets of the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the other epistles of the apostles of the New Testament: and which is eventually. - John Gill

 

[annsni]

As you suggested TCassidy, I decided to go read a book. Here are some excerpts:

"It is also critically important that we remember that the Bible, as we have it now, was not printed at all until almost 1500 years after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is easy to forget, in our modern world... that not all eras have enjoyed the luxury and convenience of the printing press. For almost one and a half millennia after the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus, the only books that existed were handwritten."

"If you had lived prior to the invention of the printing press, like the men and women of the first 1500 years of Christianity, you would have no access whatsoever to a physical Bible... It is critical that we do not lose sight of the fact that hundreds of millions of people came to know Christ without ever owning or studying the Bible."

"Does God have favorites? Surely God desired that the countless millions of people who lived before the 15th century would know and follow the life and teachings of Jesus. But how could thy, if they had no Bibles, or had no money to buy Bibles, or could not even read the Bible if they could buy one, or could not understand the Bible...?"

"For 1500 years, when there were no Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Nondenominationals, or any other Christian Church of any type, the Catholic Church preserved the Scriptures from error, saved them from destruction and extinction, multiplied them in every language under the sun, and conveyed the truths they contained to people everywhere."

"It seems strangely paradoxical that so many who claim to love Jesus Christ would be so hostile towards the (Catholic) Church, which has single-handedly protected the records of his life and teaching for so long."

Matthew Kelly

Man, this man's history is a trip! Too bad it's not based in fact. Where was the Bible from when it was written to 1500 AD? Did it just suddenly appear from dust? Maybe from a time machine? The fact that early church fathers quote from the Scriptures clearly tells us that Mr. Kelly is sorely wrong in his understanding of history.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Duh! I quoted the original question.
Have you heard the voice of God?

That's the title of the thread, not the original question. As you should know, the title is not the original question, although we hope it is related.

You changed the nature of the original question when addressing me to make it an issue of an "audible voice."

 

[agedman]

Yes, he does, as I showed you from the bible. Believe it or reject it, your choice.Duh! Paul quotes Luke's statement as scripture.

And who is Luke quoting? Luke is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ, who in turn was restating the principle of the OT, don't muzzle the ox.

That Luke is now in the cannon in which humankind put together, is still not authoritative that Luke had knowledge that he was writing Scriptures. Or that others considered them Scriptures, for Luke wrote for a specific person, and not for the general audience of the church.

By the way, the verse is saying 'just as they do to the remaining Scriptures' (loipoi 'remaining ones') which clearly shows Paul's writings as Scripture.

It would be absurd for Peter to be saying all that they were doing was twisting some letters Paul had written, and then in the same context use the reference to Scriptures, and call them 'remaining ones'.

The comment 'distort them', as they do to the 'remaining ones' (other Scriptures) and giving a solemn warning and condemnation, shows clearly Paul's writings were in fact Scriptures themselves and on the same level 'as the rest'.

What did the apostles take as the Scriptures, what each other wrote?

We take what they wrote (or at least what we hold as written by authorities, for some were not apostles that wrote what we consider Scriptures) as Scripture, but to the earliest folks they were letters from a "fellow laborer."

Taken as letters from "fellow laborers" what then was the Scriptures that the folks who were enemies of the fellowship distort? The answer can only be the OT and the life of Christ as revealed by the OT and given as instruction to the assemblies. There was NO NT until after the apostle John died, and even then there is documents the early church used that were set aside by various means until the final 66 were recognized. Even in this day, there are blocks of the world that adopt other books as part of their cannon.

I still disagree that Peter was stating Paul was writing Scriptures. I have reviewed again, and again that specific passage.
2 Peter 3:

14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,​

What was the topic that Paul had written to them about?
Does Peter state that Paul's writing was Scriptures at this point?

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
​

What is it that the folks distort? The things Paul wrote to them.
What did Paul write to them? The things about the which the folks distorted.
What else did they distort? The rest of the Scriptures, too.

There is no reading which presents Peter expressing that Paul was writing Scriptures.

What Paul was writing was about the THINGS of Scriptures. Peter is reflecting that the folks are distorting the THINGS of Scripture that Paul wrote about, and that they also distort the rest of Scripture, too.

 

[beameup]

Did God "speak to you" when you got saved?

After being saved, I was erroneously told that "God (only) speaks to you through the Bible".

 

[Internet Theologian]

And who is Luke quoting? Luke is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ, who in turn was restating the principle of the OT, don't muzzle the ox.

That Luke is now in the cannon in which humankind put together, is still not authoritative that Luke had knowledge that he was writing Scriptures. Or that others considered them Scriptures, for Luke wrote for a specific person, and not for the general audience of the church.


What did the apostles take as the Scriptures, what each other wrote?

We take what they wrote (or at least what we hold as written by authorities, for some were not apostles that wrote what we consider Scriptures) as Scripture, but to the earliest folks they were letters from a "fellow laborer."

Taken as letters from "fellow laborers" what then was the Scriptures that the folks who were enemies of the fellowship distort? The answer can only be the OT and the life of Christ as revealed by the OT and given as instruction to the assemblies. There was NO NT until after the apostle John died, and even then there is documents the early church used that were set aside by various means until the final 66 were recognized. Even in this day, there are blocks of the world that adopt other books as part of their cannon.

I still disagree that Peter was stating Paul was writing Scriptures. I have reviewed again, and again that specific passage.
2 Peter 3:

14Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,​

What was the topic that Paul had written to them about?
Does Peter state that Paul's writing was Scriptures at this point?

16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
​

What is it that the folks distort? The things Paul wrote to them.
What did Paul write to them? The things about the which the folks distorted.
What else did they distort? The rest of the Scriptures, too.

There is no reading which presents Peter expressing that Paul was writing Scriptures.

What Paul was writing was about the THINGS of Scriptures. Peter is reflecting that the folks are distorting the THINGS of Scripture that Paul wrote about, and that they also distort the rest of Scripture, too.

You keep trying but you're still incorrect and errant.

What you are implying is that only the portions of Paul's letters (which are of and in themselves Scriptures) which quote Scriptures are then actual Scriptures.

That's dangerous ground, but as long as you're correct, (or whatever it is that makes you feel correct) it's all fair game. Subjectivity at all costs, and pragmatism must reign even to the twisting of the Word.

Yours is a redundant mess and frankly errant on many accounts, and what you are doing is alleging in your argument that only when OT was quoted is their authority making Paul's letters only partly authoritative and not actually Scriptures themselves. We would have to also apply this fallacious hermeneutic to Peter's letters, then to John's, and to Luke's and ultimately to all NT Scriptures escept where the OT is cited.

But I remain confident that somehow you can distort and wrest this again affording your conscience a resting place of being 'right' again. No matter what you have to do to get to that point in your own mind.

 

[agedman]

You keep trying but you're still incorrect and errant.

What you are implying is that only the portions of Paul's letters (which are of and in themselves Scriptures) which quote Scriptures are then actual Scriptures.

No, what I am stating is the neither Peter, Paul or Luke considered what they wrote as Scriptures. It isn't what I consider, it is what they considered.

That's dangerous ground, but as long as you're correct, (or whatever it is that makes you feel correct) it's all fair game. Subjectivity at all costs, and pragmatism must reign even to the twisting of the Word.

IF it can be shown that Peter is not speaking about "the things" and about Paul speaking and writing about those "things" then do so. Until then, your view has no greater authority than mine.

All I am asking is for proof.

All I have asked for is to show how Peter is not discussing the "THINGS" of Scripture that Paul is using, and not calling Paul's writing Scriptures.

Those that claim that Peter states Paul is writing Scriptures must show proper proof.

I showed by what was OFFERED as proof was that Peter did not assign Paul as writing Scriptures. That such an assignment was inaccurate and not supported by the actual text provided.

So it falls that one must show me how that I have not read or written about the text correctly.

If one can't do that small thing, how are is that person reliable on more substantive issues?

Post the text.

Use the text to show what Peter is discussing.

Prove he is actually stating that Paul is writing Scriptures, rather than referring about the "things" found in Scriptures.

That is all I have asked.

I am ready to change my thinking.

The question remains if you are also flexible in this matter?

 

[agedman]

Upon the writing of Scriptures.

Hebrews 1 states:

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.​

This passage showed that God used the prophets in various ways to communicate. This is why one may take the OT as authoritative.

Paul states in Galatians:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
​

This passage shows the basic view of what Paul not only focused upon as the message, but also the authority level - that there was a judgment for not following the teaching of the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as eye witnessed by the Apostles. The opening of Galatians shares that Paul is included as an Apostle, therefore his teaching must be aligned also with the Gospel, or he too is accursed.

Paul did not assume all that he spoke or wrote was "Scripture."

Paul states in 1 Corinthians:

12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife...
​

This passage indicates that Paul did receive special communication from the Lord concerning matters he taught, and also there were times when he had to state his opinion and not as a message from the Lord. Does that mean that opinion carried the same weight as Scriptures? Could it be that such an opinion would not be "accursed" if it was wrong? Certainly not! Rather, because Paul wrote both "from the Lord" and "I say" statements, there is a level of authority that Paul recognized, lost in the modern church that will even use the opinion as if it were "from the Lord."

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 4:

15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.
​

This indicates that because Paul considered himself a father figure and not a tutor/teacher, only, the assembly should follow his example as he in turn has followed Christ Jesus.

Paul states in 1 Corinthians 2:

“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”​

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.​

Paul relies upon the teaching work of God through the Holy Spirit, not human wisdom. That teaching was also spoken as Godly wisdom that combined spiritual with spiritual. The "thoughts" and "words" are inputted into the statement because (imo) Paul is showing how his thoughts and thinking were from the Holy Spirit and therefore his worlds, also - spiritual to spiritual, (as a man thinks so is he).

Therefore, there is solid reason for the church to take what Paul and others wrote as Scriptures.

What I maintain is that the writers did not place that level of authority upon what they wrote, but considered they were writing what was given to them by the Holy Spirit (teaching all things of Christ) as explanation and teaching to the assemblies. As they received and recalled the teaching of Christ, the Apostles also taught to the assemblies. As such, they possibly considered themselves more as an electrical cord than a generator or originator of the power.

There is no doubt that Paul considered his writing should and would be taken as authoritative, and perhaps even to be placed (as one trained in Rabbinical school) at the level of esteem along with the rabbinical scholarly writing of note in his day.

What cannot be assumed is that Paul or any other writer of the NT knew that they were actually forming a New Testament or that such a Testament would one day emerge in the church. There is no Scripture foundation for such thinking that I have found. Should one find something I missed, then as with all matters, I remain open to a review and change IF shown by Scriptures the need.

It is also not a bad principle to hold that the Cannon of Scriptures was formed by God as the assemblies held onto and esteemed certain writings as more authoritative and more "of the Spirit of God" than other writings. Eventually that systematic weeding out, led to groups that placed a certain "stamp of approval" upon what is now the NT.

 

[Revmitchell]

What has happened in this thread is that there has been the false premise that there is only one definition or understanding of Sola Scriptura and any deviation from that is seen as heretical. This idea is false as the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has been hotly debated ever since its development and continues to be debated today. There are a number of reasonable views of this doctrine, all from sound theologians.

What we do know is that scripture is not the only source of knowledge of God. General revelation is still in effect and continues to have its effect on man as God has intended. Any claims made to suggest that scripture is the only source for understanding who God is does not understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura neither do they understand how God works in people's lives.

I think Peckham communicates this issue the best when he said:

"Scripture thus provides the authoritative data of theology and by Scripture all theological interpretation is to be tested. Whereas Scripture may be illuminated by extracanonical factors, its primacy and meaning should never be subjected ٤٠ or judged by any external standard.
Prescriptively, then, this model of sola Scriptura proposes that all extracanonical factors and presuppositions regarding doctrine should be ^entionally and consciously judged by toe uniquely authoritative canon of infallible Scripture, insofar as possible."

Peckham, John C. 2014. "Sola Scriptura: reductio ad absurdum?." Trinity Journal 35, no. 1: 195-223.

I would add also that hearing from God via that inner voice as prompted by the Holy Ghost is no less authoritative than using our own reasoning and logic to understand scripture and how to apply it to our lives. The use of our reason and logic to understand scripture is just as much outside of scripture or extracanonical than hearing from God via the inner voice. Our reason and logic is not scripture and therefore should be subject to the standard of scripture the same as anything esle.

Reason and logic are extracanonical.

 

[agedman]

For those who have disagreed with my last few posts, would it not be a very and really needed post to take up the sword of the Word of God and PROVE in what manner I am wrong.

Seriously.

Such is what I have asked, in more than one post.

I even posted a rather lengthy statement of how Paul viewed his own writing.

Rather than merely pushing a button to register disagreement, why not take up the challenge of PROVING that I have misstated the correct Scripture reading.

Perhaps there is a matter of fear that in some manner agreement would diminish the esteem one should hold Scriptures?

That assumption is just wrong.

What is wrong is some assuming without laying out proper argument that Peter holds Paul as writing Scriptures - in particular when Paul states clearly that there are some matters he writes that come from the Lord and others that are his own opinion.

I am not asking for agreement, I am asking for the foundation Scripture support for the disagreement. I presented what I considered was taught by the Scriptures, where is that work done by those who disagree?

 

[Joseph shall add]

This is a interesting question. I find it interesting from a number of stand points. Please bear with me a moment as i help you remove the Vail. God states in the new testament that his sheep hear his voice.
If you are a child of God he indeed speaks to you. ( DO YOU HEAR would be a better Question. Man has always attempted to limit how God speaks. John the Baptist called the religious leaders of his time serpents and vipers for good reason, Jesus backed him up.
Those leaders proclaimed to know God word but in fact did not know God. Which is were many people are today. I have walked with God for 46 years. He speaks to me via the scripture at times. At times he speaks via a dream, or a vision of the night. He also has spoke to me just like he spoke to Mosus. That is exactly what i said. A voice of many waters ( more like thundering to me). And when he does that you do not question if is was God speaking. The Holy Spirit speak to me in a quit still voice. And Jesus preaches to me. I am a christian i have a relationship with God, all of him. And they all have there own voice.
What most amazes me today is the fact that People even question how God speaks to the Children. God does not change, and you can expect that he speak as he always did. Just like the worked with the Jewish forefathers he still operates the same today. The bible speaks about moving from Holy to Holy. That is part of the reason many do not hear God. A refusal to walk away from sin will restore the Vail that separates you from hearing God.
God even addresses that when he states the have ears to hear but do not hear. A hardened heart and a closed ear makes it hard to hear God. If you want to hear God it requires that you seek God. You do that by getting honest with yourself and God. You also have to believe the word of God. God died for a relationship with you. If you value God then put on the word of God by which you will have a renewed mind. But also allow God to cut away the things of this world that he wants to remove from your life. The heart must be circumcised, that is a painful one. Are you willing to pay the price. Everything has a price.
Those stories in the Old testament are not just stories, they each show of about God and his ways. But the new testament Christians of today seem more interested in knowing the word of God then knowing God. I will declare to all that i know God. And i dine on his word and eat his flesh. But the way his flesh is his word. God is Holy are you willing to become Holy. Being righteous and being Holy are to different things. I am both. It takes both to early hear God will.
If you want to hear God then surrender you life to him and seek him.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning: Sometime after 4:30 am Pacific Time, this thread will be closed.

 

[Jerome]

Wonderful stuff over at the Reformed Baptista blog for those enamored of Catechisms, etc.:

The Women Behind The 1689: Mrs. Gifford

Providence seemed to give him intimation of his danger the night before his apprehension, which was so far from intimidating him, that it was a greater encouragement. His wife dreamed that he arose to go out to preach according to his appointment; but upon opening the door, the very first step he took was up to his knees in snow: that thereupon she dissuaded him, but in vain; that he was seized by two particular men, whose names she mentioned, and brought to the Sun Tavern, that then was without Lawford’s Gate, and there confined in a dining room, being placed behind a particular table in it; and one of them, by main force, held him down by leaning on his right shoulder and the other on his left.

It made such an impression that she awakened with the fright, and told him of it, and did all she could to dissuade him. But he told her, she talked like one of the foolish women; that nothing should hinder him from his Master’s business.

They arose, and upon opening the door to the yard, they found there had fallen a great snow since they went to bed, with a severe frost, that had driven up to the house, so that the first step indeed was up to his knees. Upon this she repeated her importunity, but to no purpose, and the result was that he was taken according to her dream, and every particular circumstance of it was the next day exactly fulfilled.