The Three "Lost Verses" of Acts

[Rella]

Meaning what?

You said

EarlyActs said:
There are no such verses but the D theory operates as though there are.

Shaking my head in disbelief that there would even be s discussion of what isn't.

People who operate as though there are are on something they cannot prove are just rewriting the Holy Scriptures and will account for that some day.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes , the whole obstacle is they don’t know they are adding it to what is there. Or the deletions they have grown up in.

I was somehow in my early 20s before realizing that there was a sample sermon by Paul in Acts 13, and 2, that it was unlike anything D’ism was saying.

How did this happen? I was raised in a D’ism church and college.

 

[makesends]

You said


Shaking my head in disbelief that there would even be s discussion of what isn't.

People who operate as though there are are on something they cannot prove are just rewriting the Holy Scriptures and will account for that some day.

I'm not with @EarlyActs in theology and thinking, but it seems strange that you SMH at what you characterize as a discussion of what isn't. The whole beginning of the discussion was a rhetorical mention of what would be needed in Scripture for it to support Dispensationalism, (one of which additions" to Scripture he even said outright would contradict the immediate context).

It is a common method to say that X would be needed, in order to prove Y, though some would call that, technically, "Arguing from silence", which is a fallacious method of arguing. But we do it all the time, in much the same way he did. --"Show me where in scripture the word, 'Trinity', is used!", etc. "If there was ever a place where the [opposition's assertion] should be supported/posited, HERE is where I should think Scripture would mention it!" and such, are common ways of arguing.

 

[Rella]

I'm not with @EarlyActs in theology and thinking, but it seems strange that you SMH at what you characterize as a discussion of what isn't. The whole beginning of the discussion was a rhetorical mention of what would be needed in Scripture for it to support Dispensationalism, (one of which additions" to Scripture he even said outright would contradict the immediate context).

It is a common method to say that X would be needed, in order to prove Y, though some would call that, technically, "Arguing from silence", which is a fallacious method of arguing. But we do it all the time, in much the same way he did. --"Show me where in scripture the word, 'Trinity', is used!", etc. "If there was ever a place where the [opposition's assertion] should be supported/posited, HERE is where I should think Scripture would mention it!" and such, are common ways of arguing.

As I see it there are no scripture additions or deletions needed to admit or deny the Godhead is "the" Trinity.... to make a point. And those who believe will believe and those who dont, never will. My only comment is the Genesis 1 there were 3 in creating. It needs not be discussed again, it needs to be read again without side comments or interpretations.

Every thing else that is argued in these forums should only be from one of the more common translations that people have access to so they can well compare why the wording in one differs with another and if such differing would change a meaning. And what would happen if we could juggle words, such as the NWT does or add a few for clarity, even though we have been told NOT TO.

Yes I said " Shaking my head in disbelief that there would even be s discussion of what isn't."

So many variations of beliefs, and often there is no proof of any kind. And then you have those who go back into the assorted translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek...

which BTW... I read within the past 2 days that in ancient Hebrew did not have the word "the"... I lost it and want it for another discussion on YEC... and on and on it goes.... so YES.... I will always SMH on the debates of what isnt.....

 

[Mr GLee]

As I see it there are no scripture additions or deletions needed to admit or deny the Godhead is "the" Trinity.... to make a point. And those who believe will believe and those who dont, never will. My only comment is the Genesis 1 there were 3 in creating. It needs not be discussed again, it needs to be read again without side comments or interpretations.

Every thing else that is argued in these forums should only be from one of the more common translations that people have access to so they can well compare why the wording in one differs with another and if such differing would change a meaning. And what would happen if we could juggle words, such as the NWT does or add a few for clarity, even though we have been told NOT TO.

Yes I said " Shaking my head in disbelief that there would even be s discussion of what isn't."

So many variations of beliefs, and often there is no proof of any kind. And then you have those who go back into the assorted translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek...

which BTW... I read within the past 2 days that in ancient Hebrew did not have the word "the"... I lost it and want it for another discussion on YEC... and on and on it goes.... so YES.... I will always SMH on the debates of what isnt.....

I would think it can't be two and three. Three or more would seem to be a crowd.

Why would three be necessary if God is not a man?

 

[Rella]

I would think it can't be two and three. Three or more would seem to be a crowd.

Why would three be necessary if God is not a man?

More? Only a handful who will subscribe that Elohim is inclusive of god(s) would see more.

The Holy spirit is not a man.

And at the moment the Word, who became man, who shed His blood for those who had the faith in Him, is also not a man.

 

[Mr GLee]

More? Only a handful who will subscribe that Elohim is inclusive of god(s) would see more.

The Holy spirit is not a man.

And at the moment the Word, who became man, who shed His blood for those who had the faith in Him, is also not a man.

Thanks, I would offer.

Elohim two Gods working as if one . . .empowered by one Lord, Christ the good teaching master.

Our invisible God who made himself known demonstrated outwardly in the flesh of dying mankind Jesus.

He is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters in the newborn again family. Jesus the chief apostle has given us living words from his Father.

Christ in us lovingly commandments us to call no man on earth Holy Father. One is Our Holy Father not seen. . Eternal Almighty God

The Father the Holy Spirt of all gods (born again believers) who strikes the Son of man Jesus bruising his heal in return the Son crying out for more faith) power to perform the will of the Father.

No power is attributed to the Son of man Jesus dying Mankind

Eternal God is not a Jewish man as King of kings

 

[EarlyActs]

As I see it there are no scripture additions or deletions needed to admit or deny the Godhead is "the" Trinity.... to make a point. And those who believe will believe and those who dont, never will. My only comment is the Genesis 1 there were 3 in creating. It needs not be discussed again, it needs to be read again without side comments or interpretations.

Every thing else that is argued in these forums should only be from one of the more common translations that people have access to so they can well compare why the wording in one differs with another and if such differing would change a meaning. And what would happen if we could juggle words, such as the NWT does or add a few for clarity, even though we have been told NOT TO.

Yes I said " Shaking my head in disbelief that there would even be s discussion of what isn't."

So many variations of beliefs, and often there is no proof of any kind. And then you have those who go back into the assorted translations of ancient Hebrew and Greek...

which BTW... I read within the past 2 days that in ancient Hebrew did not have the word "the"... I lost it and want it for another discussion on YEC... and on and on it goes.... so YES.... I will always SMH on the debates of what isnt.....

A language does not have to have a definite article to convey one. Sometimes German conveys it by capitalizing the first letter of a noun.

 

[Rella]

A language does not have to have a definite article to convey one. Sometimes German conveys it by capitalizing the first letter of a noun.

Not to sidetrack the subject here but.... it does if it suggest a different meaning. If one sees a suggestion that is not there, does that not lead to a slippery slope.

Gen 1, and Gen 5 ... KJV
Gen 1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, This Has a suggested different meaning if The is dropped and it reads
VS In beginning God created heaven and earth.

Gen 5, And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
VS And God called light Day, and darkness he called Night. And evening and the morning were first day.

Gen 5 NASB95 says .......................................... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Subtle changes, I grant you but important to those debaters in the YEC .....

Enough on this because I have been following along with those three non existent verses and is far more interesting.

 

[Mr GLee]

Not to sidetrack the subject here but.... it does if it suggest a different meaning. If one sees a suggestion that is not there, does that not lead to a slippery slope.

Gen 1, and Gen 5 ... KJV
Gen 1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, This Has a suggested different meaning if The is dropped and it reads
VS In beginning God created heaven and earth.

Gen 5, And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
VS And God called light Day, and darkness he called Night. And evening and the morning were first day.

Gen 5 NASB95 says .......................................... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Subtle changes, I grant you but important to those debaters in the YEC .....

Enough on this because I have been following along with those three non existent verses and is far more interesting.

Three things (triune) that make the invisible essence of God. God's glory as hidden invisible Glory.

His Spirit is Light and not that he can only create it temporally, Sun Moon

God is Spirit not dying mankind seen and God is Love and not only can he Love but does love. . Christ in us the One Holy Spirit of "Let there be truth."

I would offer. Remember the very essence of God is light. His glory as the beginning faithfully revealed the unseen things. The "let there be lights (his entrance ) curtains lifted let the demonstration begin. Day three Satan the glory of God usurped by Lucifer the false light left this world it will return on the under the Sun

 

[EarlyActs]

Not to sidetrack the subject here but.... it does if it suggest a different meaning. If one sees a suggestion that is not there, does that not lead to a slippery slope.

Gen 1, and Gen 5 ... KJV
Gen 1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, This Has a suggested different meaning if The is dropped and it reads
VS In beginning God created heaven and earth.

Gen 5, And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
VS And God called light Day, and darkness he called Night. And evening and the morning were first day.

Gen 5 NASB95 says .......................................... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Subtle changes, I grant you but important to those debaters in the YEC .....

Enough on this because I have been following along with those three non existent verses and is far more interesting.

This would have to do with the recitation structure of Genesis until Joseph wrote it down from ch 39 forward. The recitation structure has 'titles' for upcoming material. 1:1, 2:4, 5:1 etc.

 

[Rella]

This would have to do with the recitation structure of Genesis until Joseph wrote it down from ch 39 forward. The recitation structure has 'titles' for upcoming material. 1:1, 2:4, 5:1 etc.

What ever it has to do with I read Genesis 1 and 2 differently then most. Has made for an interesting debate from time to time...

Thanks

 

[EarlyActs]

What ever it has to do with I read Genesis 1 and 2 differently then most. Has made for an interesting debate from time to time...

Thanks

Please continue! I like to 'interview' people like you for the journal which I edit. I will post the main components of it. But need to get other things done first (transfereing to new laptop).

 

[EarlyActs]

My journal therefore has the following masthead beliefs, updated September 2024:







>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe, other than one off-tempo phrase at the end of v16. The creation is the forming of the crust and atmosphere, as the pottery allusion in 2 Peter 3 confirms.



>The earth may have been here for a while before day 1 for various reasons Biblical and natural.



>Evolution is unknown in the universe.



>The text’s local POV (from the surface of earth) is retained.



>The distant lifeless objects simply provided day 1 light (either naturally or speeded), not God’s designed messages like through the local objects. If Day 1 light was natural, the distant lifeless universe was ‘stretched out by God’ at some earlier time (the light-years math). God still created all the others, but for a different purpose not very explicit to earth and in a different way from our local system. The purpose is not actually disclosed until Gen 15.



The ancient near eastern mind made an important distinction between moving and static objects in the sky (Boorstin, DISCOVERERS). In pagan cultures, the movements resulted in astrology; in original Judaism, it resulted in a declaration about salvation and in annual sacred events.



>2 Peter 3’s finalization intended a time disconnection between the distant universe and earth, and did not put the distant universe in “creation”, neither when thinking about Genesis nor when reporting the skeptical cult’s delusion (the ‘stoicheians’). Again, this is about the crust and atmosphere, not the older materials. For the same reason, the phrase ‘blackest darkness’ (2P2 and Jude) was also apart from our locale and there before its forming.



>The designation YEC is unclear on the critical but non-evolutionary time distinction of 2 Peter 3 and the rest of scripture about it. So is the accusation about a gap existing between 1:1 and 2.

 

[Rella]

Please continue! I like to 'interview' people like you for the journal which I edit. I will post the main components of it. But need to get other things done first (transfereing to new laptop).

Um... Ill fill you in by DM if you wish but not out here for Ive too much going on for the past 3 months to defend my own beliefs.

Let me know

 

[Mr GLee]

My journal therefore has the following masthead beliefs, updated September 2024:







>Creation week of local things was recent! Gen 1 was not about the lifeless, static, distant universe, other than one off-tempo phrase at the end of v16. The creation is the forming of the crust and atmosphere, as the pottery allusion in 2 Peter 3 confirms.



>The earth may have been here for a while before day 1 for various reasons Biblical and natural.



>Evolution is unknown in the universe.



>The text’s local POV (from the surface of earth) is retained.



>The distant lifeless objects simply provided day 1 light (either naturally or speeded), not God’s designed messages like through the local objects. If Day 1 light was natural, the distant lifeless universe was ‘stretched out by God’ at some earlier time (the light-years math). God still created all the others, but for a different purpose not very explicit to earth and in a different way from our local system. The purpose is not actually disclosed until Gen 15.



The ancient near eastern mind made an important distinction between moving and static objects in the sky (Boorstin, DISCOVERERS). In pagan cultures, the movements resulted in astrology; in original Judaism, it resulted in a declaration about salvation and in annual sacred events.



>2 Peter 3’s finalization intended a time disconnection between the distant universe and earth, and did not put the distant universe in “creation”, neither when thinking about Genesis nor when reporting the skeptical cult’s delusion (the ‘stoicheians’). Again, this is about the crust and atmosphere, not the older materials. For the same reason, the phrase ‘blackest darkness’ (2P2 and Jude) was also apart from our locale and there before its forming.



>The designation YEC is unclear on the critical but non-evolutionary time distinction of 2 Peter 3 and the rest of scripture about it. So is the accusation about a gap existing between 1:1 and 2.

Remember God is Light and not that he can oily create it .

Day one let there be the presence of God and it was the good light that revealed the darkness .

Seeing false pride in the heart of the fathers of lies The light of his glorious presence departed. the two temporal coeurtion time keeper began winding down to the last day under the Sun

 

[makesends]

Remember God is Light and not that he can oily create it .

Day one let there be the presence of God and it was the good light that revealed the darkness .

Seeing false pride in the heart of the fathers of lies The light of his glorious presence departed. the two temporal coeurtion time keeper began winding down to the last day under the Sun

There is nothing that God "only" (merely) creates, or to put it more to the point, there is nothing that God creates, then leaves it to go rogue or to exist in and of itself.