zealyouthguy

The KJV translators were honest in their translation and put any word that wasn't in the original manuscript (some because basic sentence structure of hebrew isn't the same as English) in italics.

So any time you see an italicized word it wasn't in the TR.

Hey all,

I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be following some of my own advice and won't be posting on OLB any more. I'll finish up a couple of things tonight, but if you need to contact me you can get me at zealyouthguy@gmail.com.

Thanks a lot to those I've come to know through OLB as friends, it's been good to see you again.

I sense that is your real problem with hand raising. You seem to be under the impression that it is a "charismatic thing". Biblical hand raising isn't a "charismatic thing" any more than the Holy Spirit is a "charismatic thing". The charismatics are prone to abuse the proper use of hand raising and turn it into a outlet for the flesh but that doesn't mean that hand raising is unbiblical and to be avoided any more than their mis-attributing of things like tongues(or what they call tongues rather) to the Holy Ghost means we should avoid speaking of the Holy Spirit.


Address the real problem, the charismatics common abuse of hand raising, but hand raising IS biblical and you can't deny it.

Also, the tanakh (the Masoretic Text which would have been used by 1st century Jews) does indeed have Psalms 2 the same as ours:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2602.htm

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Ac 13:33
Written in the second Psalm - Instead of ???????????????? the second Psalm, ?????????? , the first Psalm, is the reading of D, and its Itala version, and several of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has received it into the text; but not, in my opinion, on sufficient evidence. The reason of these various readings is sufficiently evident to those who are acquainted with Hebrew MSS. In many of these, two Psalms are often written as one; and the first and second Psalms are written as one in seven of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS. Those who possessed such MSS. would say, as it is written in the First Psalm; those who referred to MSS. where the two Psalms were separate, would say, in the Second Psalm, as they would find the quotation in question in the first verse of the second Psalm. There is, therefore, neither contradiction nor difficulty here; and it is no matter which reading we prefer, as it depends on the simple circumstance, whether we consider these two Psalms as parts of one and the same, or whether we consider them as two distinct Psalms.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ac 13:33

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,? The natural descendants of them, as Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews in the synagogue, were:

in that he hath raised up Jesus again; which may not be understood of his resurrection from the dead, since the promise made, and now fulfilled, has not a single respect to that; but of his being raised up, and sent forth into the world, to be a Saviour and Redeemer, and to sit upon the throne of David, as in Ac 2:30 of which raising of him up to regal dignity, mention is made in Ps 2:1, Ps 6:1 which is produced as a testimony of it; and the rather this seems to be the sense, since the article of the resurrection of the dead is spoken of in the next verse, as distinct from this; and other passages of Scripture are produced, as speaking of it; though admitting that Christ's resurrection from the dead is here intended, as the Alexandrian copy reads, what follows is very applicable to it, without any detriment to the doctrine of Christ's eternal generation and sonship, as will be hereafter made to appear:

as it is written in the second psalm: Beza's most ancient copy, and other very ancient copies, read, "in the first psalm"; for the first and second psalms seem to have been reckoned by the ancient Jews but one psalm, or one section; for so they say1.

""blessed is the man", etc. and "why do the Heathen rage", etc. ??? ???? ???, are one "parasha", or section: and they further observe2, that "every section that was dear to David, he began it with "blessed", and ended it with "blessed"; he began with "blessed", as it is written, Ps 1:1 "blessed is the man", etc. and he ended it with "blessed", as it is written, Ps 2:12 "blessed are all they that put their "trust in him":'' though it is elsewhere said3, "blessed is the man", etc. Ps 1:1 "and why do the heathen rage", etc. Ps 2:1 are two sections; and "to the chief musician on Muth Labben", Ps 9:1) and "why standest thou afar off", etc. (Ps 10:1-18) are two sections.''

And Kimchi calls4 this psalm, as the generality of copies here do, saying,

"this psalm is ?????? ????, "the second psalm."''

And that this psalm belongs to the Messiah, is evident from the mention made of him in Ps 2:2 from the mad counsel, and vain attempts of the kings of the earth against him, Ps 2:1. God's decree and resolution to make and declare him King of Zion, notwithstanding all their efforts upon him, Ps 2:4 from his asking and having the Gentiles, and uttermost parts of the earth for his inheritance, which is true of no other, Ps 2:8 and especially from that reverence, worship, and adoration, which are to be given to him, and that trust and confidence to be placed in him, Ps 2:10 which can by no means agree with David, nor with any mere creature whatever; and as for Ps 2:7 which is here cited, what is said in that is inapplicable even to angels, Heb 1:5 and much more to David, or any mere man. The whole psalm was, by the ancient Jews, interpreted of the Messiah, as is confessed by some of their later doctors. R. David Kimchi says5,

John,

Praying for you. There is so much that could be said, but it could all be fruitless because we aren't there and don't have contact with you and your family. I am praying for wisdom for you, your wife, and your pastor. I pray that God will lift you up through this and that He will be glorified ultimately.

Bill Maher hates God and has recently made a moving (to be released) mocking religion. From what I understand (reading some reviews) is that it mocks all religions but specifically the Catholicism for christianity.

Bill Maher needs God's salvation as much as any of us. I dare say that had I not been saved as a child that it could be me in his shoes.

Comedy is a great medium for passing on dangerous ideas, and Bill Maher has plenty of dangerous ideas. I hope God shows (or perhaps he already has???) himself real in Bill Maher's life.

Well I am certainly not defending the NIV, but probably from:

Ecclesiastes 1:14 14 I have seen all the works that are done <`asah> under the sun ; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit .

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7469. r@`uwth
Search for H7469 in KJVSL
twer r@`uwth reh-ooth'
probably from 7462; a feeding upon, i.e. grasping after:--vexation.

See Hebrew 7462


and

Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
7307. ruwach
Search for H7307 in KJVSL
xwr ruwach roo'-akh
from 7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y).

See Hebrew 7306

I think its too early to tell at this point. A debate or two are necessary before we can get a true feel for how it is going. Given the choices though' date=' I honestly don't care. They are both bad for the country. This is the worst I've felt about any election and I haven't been very warm and fuzzy about the last four or five. I am putting all my trust in God as to how things are going to go here in America and throughout the world.[/quote']
Agreed.

Although I see that Obama is up by about 8 points in the polls now.


The Palin choice will be interesting (from a politics in America standpoint).

It makes me happy to see people interested in canning.

We weren't able to do a garden this year due to the timing of our move. Normally we can quite a bit of things. This year it will probably consist of applesauce and some cider, since I have one AWESOME apple tree (we call him Old Man Apple) and a couple of trees that i think will make good cider. We'll probably do some crab apple jelly soon also.

Yes, we sing that song.

As far as unctions (I am going to post the definition for anyone not sure), I wonder if that's a colloquial term? We prayed for the anointing of the Spirit, but the only time I've heard the word "unction" used was in reference to the Catholic sacrament.

Is it a southern thing or is it prevalent everywhere and I've just not heard it before?


unc

It's no wonder, I've seen so many seekers come and go from this website, you ask an honest question, and the first answer implies that your motives for asking are wrong from the very beginning.
Thanks for the scripture Zealyouthguy.
I think I will seek the answer else were, since your attitude doesn't imply that you really want to talk about it with a right heart.

C

There is a man on the NET calling himself Pastor Harry Walther' date=' Is he some kind of false prophet? [/quote']
Yes.

He teaches that Satan is going to Rapture people, etc.

Lots of crazy teachings.

I'd like to see the scripture you support that with please?

C

Aw, Congrats Matie K! God is surely blessing you and your husband. Stay faithful.

Praying for little Anita Dawn here! :pray

agreed!!!

Hey, I hear you and I totally understand that God sets up kings and those in national authority. I do my part to be a good citizen and I do exercise my right to cast a ballot for the better candidate in light of God's Word........I didn't volunteer and serve for 10 1/2 years in our nations military to insure our freedom to cast a ballot to not do so.

With that said, I will say that we in America have caused a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have put forth that "all politicians" are corrupt or ungodly; then removed ourselves from those offices and left things up to the corrupt and ungodly. Not everyone is called to be a preacher, pastor or evangelism; there are those who are gifted and stand on the Word of God that could and should run for office to be a servant to do the right things for their neighbor and to be a testimony for God.

While God holds the king's heart in his hands; I've noticed many times throughout the Scriptures that God has also used people of God in those "king's" nations in very prominent ways. Some were men and others women. I believe that God does allow us to be involved in running our government and there is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the post TRC. I am angry a bit about politics/religion marriage in this country (as I've stated before).

I think we need to stress, repeatedly, that we are strangers in a strange land and yet we seem to lean on the ultimate pleasers of men, politicians so heavily.

We WANT to believe in someone and invest in "hope". I can see why so many people are going to vote for Obama, he gives a great oratory and postulates and projects hope. But hope is only found in Jesus Christ. (I know that YOU know this, but I am speaking in general now).

I've admitted I like Palin as a political figure, but she IS a political figure. I am sure you are aware of the investigation into ethics of her firing in Alaska. I of course will reserve judgment until the findings are in... but men are wicked and evil (women too).

I get a kick every time I hear someone saying "I'm not voting a pastor in". It's a non-sequitur argument. We aren't talking about denominations or doctrines. We are talking about offering our support to men (or women) to be lifted to the highest post in America who sets the tone and moral direction for our country in many ways. I would love to vote for King Jesus, but I know that no one will measure up to that, but I do have to take into account the history of the people running and compare that to their words now.

I've not seen any of them when addressing a situation say... You know, I was wrong on that... all I see is political spin. Politicians playing the political game. If Sarah Palin came out and said... You know I should not have vetoed that bill. I could respect that. But we can NEVER let the constitution take place of the God and the bible and our convictions. If something over rules our conviction, then what we have is a preference and not a conviction.

It's a dangerous precedent to set, that our interpretation (or our adviser's interpretations) over rule our convictions... And yes this is why it's HARD for a Christan to serve in the government, because we hold God and his word higher than the constitution... What if Daniel had said, "Well it's the law and I agreed to serve the King." ??? What if the Hebrew Children had chosen law over conviction?

God is best served, not by the constitution, but by the conviction of his servants. And it's unfortunate (because most Christians can't even see it) but we allow our churches and pastors and members to be used for political expediency and then we look the other way and wash our hands instead of holding them to task.

So to be clear, I am not angry at anyone individual (especially here on OB) but I am angry. If you (general not YOU trc) decide to vote for McCain/Palin and you feel peace at God with what you are supporting... I can't say anything. But if you vote to "keep out Obama" and vote FOR the things that McCain/Palin have done and what they hope to do... I can say that this is nothing more than compromise.

So, as I said. Vote Righteously. Just remember, God doesn't work through the majority, in fact he goes out of his way to make it clear that it's really HIM working and not the populace.

Looks like she made the decision not because she agreed with it but because she was told it would be unconstitutional to veto it.

The Kansas Senate on Thursday voted 25-13 to pass a bill (House Substitute for SB 389) that includes a number of antiabortion-related provisions, the Wichita Eagle reports. The bill was sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), who is expected to veto the measure. According to the Eagle, the bill passed two votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a veto.

The bill, which adds additional abortion reporting requirements, would expand information physicians must provide to the state when they perform abortions, require that more information be made public, and that abortion clinic employees report suspected abuse of underage girls. During debate, the major point of contention was a provision that would allow siblings, parents, grandparents or the husband of a pregnant woman to go to court to stop her from having a post-21 week abortion if they can argue the procedure might violate state law (Lefler, Wichita Eagle, 4/4). The measure allows a woman who had an abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy and some members of her family to sue for monetary damages if a physician violates the law (Manning, Associated Press, 4/3). The measure also would allow a district or county attorney, as well as the attorney general, to prosecute violations (Wichita Eagle, 4/4).

Does it matter to you that she didn't approve them; but vetoed a ban on them? Does it matter to you why?

She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[12] While the previous administration did not implement same-sex benefits, Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court order and signed them into law.[34] She disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling[35] and supported a democratic advisory vote from the public on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[36] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[37] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[12]

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation.[35]

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

In the first veto of her new administration, Palin said she rejected the bill as unconstitutional despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order that directed the state to offer the benefits.

"Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office," Palin said in a written statement Thursday night.

The anti-gay bill was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature during a special November session.

The state Supreme Court last year ordered Alaska to extend the benefits, finding that denying them violated the state's guarantee of equal protection for all Alaskans. Justices set a deadline of Jan. 1, 2007, for having the benefits in place.

In September, a Superior Court judge assigned to oversee details of implementation found that the regulations proposed by the state were too restrictive; they required, for example, that same-sex couples attest to being in a committed relationship for at least 12 months and document each year they are still together.

The fight began in 1999, when the American Civil Liberties Union and nine couples sued challenging the lack of benefits for same-sex couples employed by the state and the city of Anchorage.

She is definitely more conservative than McCain (and that says a lot).

Let me ask, does the fact that she approved same-sex benefits for Alaskans affect your vote at all?

I have absolutely no clue. I don't see your point...? My husband does not use the pulpit as a political outlet, if that is what you are getting at. Anyway...for those who are tax free, its illegal.

What ARE you getting at???

I really don't understand where you are getting at with religion/politics actually...maybe our church just isn't one of the ones you are referring to.

I see them as fairly seperate actually, which is why I might be voting for McCain (depending on VP pick, haven't yet decided) in order to avoid Obama...because I'm not voting for a religious institution or a church, I'm trying to use my vote to keep as much freedom in this country as possible. Given the choices, there isn't a whole lot of hope, but Obama will have our freedoms gone within four years and at least the alternative should be more gradual.

Does anyone have his personal information? His church he went to or anything like that?

Alright, I am just going to limit myself from too many political posts because I am fed up with the state of politics/religion and their ties.

I probably have been too serious (although I don't like the name calling as I've stated) so I will be the new ZYG with 80% less politics.