Strange Things the Holy Spirit Cannot Do….

[Pastor Larry]

You and Pastor Larry deny the Holy Spirit the ability and means to communicate the truth of the actual written Word

STOP THE DISHONESTY. We do not know his ability and means. We deny that he does it the way you claim. Those are very different issues. If we denied his ability and means, we would have to deny the very existence of inspired Scripture.

Again, you show that you don't even understand the discussion.

yet you want me to just accept Pastor Larry’s ‘extra biblical’ means (whatever that amounts to in this case) of interpretation concerning it?

We are not talking about interpretation, but about a textual variant.

If the Holy Spirit cannot even testify to ones heart the truth of the passage itself, that it is as He intended for it to read, I certainly can place no faith in Pastor Larry’s opinion, that is without the least shred of supporting evidence other than ‘Pastor Larry says so.”

You both deny that the Holy Spirit can enlighten ones understanding as to His original intents,

STOP THE DISHONESTY. If you think that is what we are saying then you don't get it.

Your position, and the position of Pastor Larry, clearly limits the Omnipotent God,

STOP THE DISHONESTY. I do not limit the Omnipotent God beyond what he has said in Scripture about himself.

I will leave this issue with the readers unless others decide to enter into the discussion lest we bore the readers.

I would encourage you go enter this discussion. Your comments reveal that you are not in this discussion. You are apparently having an entirely different discussion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: STOP THE DISHONESTY. We do not know his ability and means. We deny that he does it the way you claim.

HP: I am not being dishonest. My only claim was that the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart the truth of Romas 8:1 as written in the KJV. If you do not know His ability, then you have no right to say that He cannot reveal truth of that nature to my heart. When you deny that the Holy Spirit can testify to my heart as He has done, you are making a claim that you 'DO know' how He operates and that He CANNOT' act as I say He has done in my life, which in this case is simply a matter of testifying to my heart, or I could say affirming to my mind, that the KJV of this passage is in accordance to that which His verbally inspiration desired it to be.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth and then play games with those you speak with acting as if the problem in understanding you lies with the other party. The confusion is not with me, it is with you saying two completely contradictory statements. You cannot say you do not know and then tell us that “He cannot act” like I have sated He has testified to my heart of the truth of His written Word being just as He stated it as evidenced by the KJV in this particular passage.

Have it one way or the other, but it cannot be both at the same time in the same sense.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

HP: I am not being dishonest. My only claim was that the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart the truth of Romas 8:1 as written in the KJV. If you do not know His ability, then you have no right to say that He cannot reveal truth of that nature to my heart. When you deny that the Holy Spirit can testify to my heart as He has done, you are making a claim that you 'DO know' how He operates and that He CANNOT' act as I say He has done in my life, which in this case is simply a matter of testifying to my heart, or I could say affirming to my mind, that the KJV of this passage is in accordance to that which His verbally inspiration desired it to be.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth and then play games with those you speak with acting as if the problem in understanding you lies with the other party. The confusion is not with me, it is with you saying two completely contradictory statements. You cannot say you do not know and then tell us that “He cannot act” like I have sated He has testified to my heart of the truth of His written word being just as He stated it as evidenced by the KJV in this particular passage.

Have it one way or the other, but it cannot be both at the same time in the same sense.

I'm not disagreing with you here just asking a question.

How do you distinguish between what the Holy Spirit affirms to you and what a mormon feels when he gets confirmation of the Truth of the Book of Mormon by a burning in his/her bussom?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thinkingstuff: I'm not disagreeing with you here just asking a question.

How do you distinguish between what the Holy Spirit affirms to you and what a Mormon feels when he gets confirmation of the Truth of the Book of Mormon by a burning in his/her bosom?

HP: Excellent question. :thumbs: My answer would be by faith. Yes, the Morman would say the same thing most likely, but what does that prove? One can claim to have faith yet be as lost as a goose in a snowstorm.

One can say I am saved as well as you or I can say we are saved, yet one may in fact be deceived. Does the fact that one is deceived, or the possibility that one could be deceived, provide any reason for the other to deny his faith has merits? No way. God will judge any and all such claims in the end. If I am wrong, God will straighten me out. If DHK or Pastor Larry are wrong, God will straighten them out. In the meantime I will state my claim boldly by faith without equivocation that the Holy Spirit testifies to my heart, or affirms the truth to my heart, that the KJV rendering of Romans 8:1 is indeed that which He verbally inspired the original authors to write.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am not being dishonest.

Yes you are. When you say that we believe the Holy Spirit doesn't have the ability to testify to our hearts, you are being dishonest. We have said time and time again, he has the ability.

If you do not know His ability, then you have no right to say that He cannot reveal truth of that nature to my heart

His ability was never in question. He has the ability and he can reveal truth of that nature to your heart.

When you deny that the Holy Spirit can testify to my heart

I didn't deny that.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth and then play games with those you speak with acting as if the problem in understanding you lies with the other party.

I don't speak out of both sides of my mouth. I have been clear and yes, the problem is with you not understanding.

You cannot say you do not know

Say I do not know what?

and then tell us that “He cannot act” like I have sated He has testified to my heart of the truth of His written Word being just as He stated it as evidenced by the KJV in this particular passage.

I never said "he cannot act." I said he doesn't. That is a completely different statement.

Have it one way or the other, but it cannot be both at the same time in the same sense.

Of course not, but you are not paying attention. You don't seem to know what the conversation is about.

Let's be clear yet again:

1. The Holy Spirit can reveal truth to your heart such as textual variants, new revelation, whatever.
2. The Holy Spirit does not reveal truth immediately to your heart. He does it through means. He does not speak directly to us, or give us impressions, about textual variants.

Get this clearly: He can, but he doesn't.

This discussion is not about his ability. It is about what he actually does.

 

[tamborine lady]

Pastor Larry,

I have a question.

You said"Get this clearly: He can, but he doesn't."

Is there anywhere in the New Testament where He did?

God Bless,

Tam

 

[Pastor Larry]

Is there anywhere in the New Testament where He did?

The whole NT is the result of him doing that. In addition, there are many individual instances.

 

[DHK]

HP,
Here is something for you to think about.
From what you have written you believe that the KJV is "the inspired Word of God," correct?
Is then the corollary of that true: that the modern versions are not inspired?
For example, is the NIV, translated from the Critical Text, the "inspired" Word of God?

Now consider: When the Wycliffe Bible translators and those who went forth from the British Foreign Bible Society into the various nations of the world they used the Critical Text. Most of the nations of this world (more than 90% of them) have a Bible that is translated from the Critical Text, much like the ASV. For most of this world, then are you willing to say that they do not have the Word of God simply because it is not translated from the text that you favor? Does 90% of the world no longer have the Word of God because it is not "KJV-equivalent"?

Or would a person go and have to teach those nations first Shakespearean English, that they might read the KJV because it alone is the inspired Word of God? Remember that many of those nations have a high illiteracy rate in their own languages, much less in knowing English. Do you think you should force missionaries to teach the language of the KJV to all nations that they may be able to read "the inspired Word of God"? Or are their Bibles, translated from the Critical Text, also the Word of God?
What is your position HP?

Please answer this post HP.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Get this clearly: He can, but he doesn't.

HP: Where does Scripture establish that He doesn’t……or are we right back around on this merry-go round of your making that is only so because Larry says it is so? Why do not you just say, God has never spoken to my heart or impressed my spirit in such a way? That might be at least close to the truth, but what right do you have to tell me the Holy Spirit doesn’t, will not, or cannot now speak to my heart (via clear impressions, etc.) or the heart of any other believer in such a manner? Where is your Scriptural evidence? What do you have to offer this list other than your private list of limitations upon the work of the Holy Spirit, no where established in Scripture? Where do the Scriptures state or imply that He does not so impress the mind of His children today? Do the work of a faithful minister of God. Establish your theory by the clear well established Word of God. To the law and testimony Larry.

I certainly do not desire that you would have to learn your lesson as I once did about the work of the Holy Spirit, but God certainly God has clear ways to get His point across. I can personally attest to that fact. Limit Him all you so desire, but I certainly will not without an absolute clear Scripture, something you have yet to produce.

If you are not putting a clear, unadulterated limitation on the work of the Holy Spirit no where attested to in Scripture, the Pope is not a Catholic. You have the right to limit Him in your life if you so desire, but you have no right to stand there and play God and tell us what He will and will not do. You have absolutely no Scriptural grounds to say that God cannot so impress my spirit of the truth of any or all translations concerning Romans 8:1, for He can and He has in my own life.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where does Scripture establish that He doesn’t

I think the testimony of Scripture is that 1) Scripture is completely sufficient to equip us for every good work and therefore, we don't need this extra information, and 2) that revelatory/direct revelation gifts have ceased with the close of the canon.

I could make an extended argument for that, but I don't have time, and I can't do it as well as it has been done in other places.

It should be enough to recognize that Scripture is sufficient to equip us for every good work, and I don't need extra information from the Spirit. His work is in the realm of regeneration and illumination.

Why do not you just say, God has never spoken to my heart or impressed my spirit in such a way?

Because experience is not the measure of doctrine. Scripture is. What I have experienced is irrelevant.

BTW, I have to note the irony that you are asking me for clear Scripture yet you have produced no clear Scripture in support of your position that the Spirit gives you information regarding textual variants. Why the double standard?

 

[DHK]

HP: Where does Scripture establish that He doesn’t

Other way around HP.
Does the Holy Spirit testify to you about mathematical concepts?
Why or why not?
Does He then testify to you about textual criticism? Why the one and not the other? They are both outside the realm of the teaching of the Word? You must show your case from the Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What is your position HP?

HP: My position is clear and has been stated several times. I have limited my comments concerning a specific text, in particular Romans 8:1. Let me ask you a question. Is the text in Romans 8:1 the KVJ the Inspired Words of God or not? Did God say that as the KJV renders it or did He not? What is your position DHK? I have stated my position clearly so that a man, though a fool, could understand it.

Let me state it again. I believe that the passage of Romans 8:1 in the KJV is without a doubt the very inspired Words of God as testified or impressed upon my spirit by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tamborine lady]

The whole NT is the result of him doing that. In addition, there are many individual instances.

But He doesn't do it anymore. Is that correct?

Tam

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Other way around HP. Does the Holy Spirit testify to you about mathematical concepts?
Why or why not?

HP: If the mathematical principles you are addressing are in reality truth, yes, they have their source as God. They might have been taught to me by an atheist, but God is still the source of truth regardless if you or the atheist believes it to be so. If not, tell us DHK. From whence does the truth of mathematics emanate? Now this should be an enlightening discussion indeed. Do you think you need to start a new thread for that topic?

DHK: Does He then testify to you about textual criticism? Why the one and not the other? They are both outside the realm of the teaching of the Word? You must show your case from the Bible.

HP: Not according to me. I say they are both within the realm of God’s truth and wisdom, regardless of means by which they are made real to the mind and heart of man or the messenger that brings them, again if they are in accordance to truth.

 

[DHK]

HP: My position is clear and has been stated several times. I have limited my comments concerning a specific text, in particular Romans 8:1. Let me ask you a question. Is the text in Romans 8:1 the KVJ the Inspired Words of God or not? Did God say that as the KJV renders it or did He not? What is your position DHK? I have stated my position clearly so that a man, though a fool, could understand it.

Let me state it again. I believe that the passage of Romans 8:1 in the KJV is without a doubt the very inspired Words of God as testified or impressed upon my spirit by the Holy Spirit.

No, I do not believe you are correct.
In fact I believe you are far removed from the mark of the truth.
Please understand this. No translation of the Scriptures is inspired--not the KJV--not any translations.
It is impossible. If they were inspired, then every single word would be perfect, without error, completely infallible. We know that is not the case. For example, in Acts 12:4 the word "pascha" in all other places in the NT is translated "passover." In this one place it is mis-translated "Easter." It is a wrong translation.

In the OT, the word "unicorn" is used a number of times. The unicorn is Greek mythology which the Jews did not believe. If you look in other translations you will find a much more accurate translation of the word.

The word church should simply read "assembly". Political Correctness on the part of the Anglican Church required them to translate it as church, and it has caused confusion ever since.

In Phil.3:20 the word "conversation" is used, as "Our conversation is in heaven." Is it? Our speech? Our behaviour? No, the word should have been translated citizenship. Nowhere else in the Bible was this word translated this way.

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
--The words "God forbid" are not even in the Greek--not "God," nor "forbid," neither one.
The expression should read: "May it not be." That is the accurate literal translation. But the KJV translators used dynamic equivalency this time.

No translation is perfect. They all have mistakes of translation. There is no one who can translate perfectly because of idioms and such that are untranslatable or unique to one language. The translator can come close, but not perfect. Thus the KJV cannot be perfect. Some meaning is lost in the translation--always. That is why we have the Greek NT to rely upon, as well as the Hebrew OT. The KJV is not inspired; it is not perfect.

 

[tamborine lady]

DHK: No translation is perfect. They all have mistakes of translation. There is no one who can translate perfectly because of idioms and such that are untranslatable or unique to one language. The translator can come close, but not perfect. Thus the KJV cannot be perfect. Some meaning is lost in the translation--always. That is why we have the Greek NT to rely upon, as well as the Hebrew OT. The KJV is not inspired; it is not perfect.

You Sir appear to have stepped in your own mess. Ever since I have been coming to this board, you have said that 1Cor 13-10 "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." is proof that the bible is the perfect that is spoken of here. I remember that you said that is why all prophecy and tongues have passed away.

Now you say the bible is not perfect.

If none of the translations are correct, then we don't have the "perfect" yet.


Care to explain?

Tam

 

[DHK]

DHK: No translation is perfect. They all have mistakes of translation. There is no one who can translate perfectly because of idioms and such that are untranslatable or unique to one language. The translator can come close, but not perfect. Thus the KJV cannot be perfect. Some meaning is lost in the translation--always. That is why we have the Greek NT to rely upon, as well as the Hebrew OT. The KJV is not inspired; it is not perfect.

You Sir appear to have stepped in your own mess. Ever since I have been coming to this board, you have said that 1Cor 13-10 "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." is proof that the bible is the perfect that is spoken of here. I remember that you said that is why all prophecy and tongues have passed away.

Now you say the bible is not perfect.

If none of the translations are correct, then we don't have the "perfect" yet.


Care to explain?

Tam

I'd be glad to explain.
The Old English word "perfect" means "complete."
When that which is "perfect" (completed) is come then that which is in part shall be done away.
When the completed word came, then those gifts which were temporary were done away.
"Perfect" in the Bible, often means "complete."

As in many words, the word is used differently today, and doesn't have quite the same meaning as it did 400 years ago.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Pastor Larry,

A few years ago I was at work one night, and at a time when it was not very busy, I discerned God saying to me "Go up to the 3rd floor"

Thats all. Just go up to the 3rd floor.

So, up the elevator I went. I had no idea what God had for me to do, but when I got up there I just started walking down the hallway.

Just as I passed by a particular room, a co-worker glanced at the door...at just the moment that I was passing by...and called me in, saying that she was just thinking that she wished I was there.

It turned out the person she was speaking with (witnessing to) had some spiritual questions and she didnt have the answers.

I was able to minster to the man more adequetly.



Do you believe that God witnessed to my heart to go up to the 3rd floor at that moment?


:godisgood:

 

[tamborine lady]

It is really sad to see people such as yourself, DHK, appear to have so much knowledge. If we all listened to you, we would feel that we have absolutely no business reading the bible without having a college degree.

As for myself, I prefer to let God interpret my KJV and let me know what it says. I may not have a college degree, but I do have the Holy Ghost to interpret for me, and he will teach me all things.

I know you don't see it that way, and that's O.K. This seems to be where I came in, so i will see you later.

May God show you all the things you need to know.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

P.S. If we use your thinking, then unlearned people would not be able to receive the Word, and be saved. So sad.

 

[DHK]

May God show you all the things you need to know.

Working for Jesus,

Tam

P.S. If we use your thinking, then unlearned people would not be able to receive the Word, and be saved. So sad.

God does show me what I need to know.
The sad thing is that you reject knowledge based on outdated words.
If you teach others the same way their knowledge of the gospel will be hindered. You are hindering others from understanding the Word.

I demonstrated to you in a number of ways how the meanings of words have changed. "Perfect" often, if not most of the time, means "complete."

Now, let me give you another example.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
The word "let" means "allow," correct? That is how we use it in our everyday language. So you teach according to your KJV that "he who now allows will allow until he will be taken out of the way."


But look at a modern translation, which gives a modern meaning to that outdated word "let" which has changed in meaning from 400 years ago.


[FONT=&quot]2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way

The word does not mean "allow" but rather the opposite of allow, "restrain." You would be teaching the opposite of what the verse is teaching. The word now has the opposite meaning of what it used to have. Words change in meaning. Old English words in the KJV have become archaic and have changed in meaning. Unless one realizes that their understanding of the Bible will be very poor.

Furthermore, as I have pointed, and as you can consult with any missionary on this board that has done translational board, there is no perfect translation. Meaning is always lost in translation from one language to another. There is no such thing as a "perfect translation."
[/FONT]