TheSword

John,
If I may attempt to shed a little more light on the "unknown" aspect of your question. As NN said, the word used for tongue here (glossa) referred axiomatically to a language but also carried the connotation speaking in a language that was not one's native language. Culturally, "unknown" is bound up in the word itself. When you rewind to Acts 2 where the first instance of speaking in tongues is found, a different word is used--dialektos, from which we get dialect--that was usually accompanied by a region or ethnic group that specified the origin of the language. Thus, dialektos implied a language of known origin whereas glossa implied a language of unknown origin from the perspective of the speaker/writer. That is to say, they refer to actual language spoken by existing people/people groups.

Howdy everyone. It's been about a year since I last logged on here for anything other than to respond to a personal message, but I think a lot of you may remember me. I feel much refreshed after my time away and the environment looks to have cooled off a bit. Life also got a lot busier while I was away, so I don't know if I'll be able to contribute as much as I did, but I'm looking forward to some thoughtful discussions again.

The Bible DOES, however, speak somewhat on hair, in the New Testament.
 
Men are to wear their hair short, women should wear it long. That's pretty clear, no one is arguing that, however.
 
Interstingly, most of the issues with hair are geared toward women, meaning that there has been, apparently, more prOBlems with women and their hair, than men. And of course, hair issues seem to have to do with modesty.
 
Modesty, remember, is not just as it is often explained, concerning length of clothing or tightness, or even revealing of flesh, per se, but rather of going to inordinate lengths to bring attention to one's self. Women are told not to plait and broid the hair. Does that mean a woman is not to 'do' her hair? Of course not. Having done some study in the issue, it seems that about the time these things were written by Paul, women in the Middle East and particularly Roman areas were ceasing wearing coverings and veils, and were thus spending much more time in their hairstyles-they would make magnificent stylings, sometimes taking up to 8 hours to complete, and they would compete with one another. This is what Paul spoke against-going to great lengths to bring attention to yourself. THAT'S immodest, whether it be in hair or in clothes, be it skimpy or just overly-ornate. Jewelry, as well. 
 
So, with the subject at hand, and I think AVBB was working toward that point, the young man with the mohawk has a clear intention of drawing attention to himself with his hairstyle. It makes a statement, one beyond just, as my clothing might say in a suit, "I am a Christian", but more extreme-and many will indeed see it differently. "I am a WARRIOR!". Well, don't wear it-live it. There is an intention of seeking attention in such a style, and despite having a nice-sounding reasoning, making it become Christian, much as is attempted with CCM, Christianizing something specifically NOT Christian, and ultimately, it seems one becomes immodest and attention-seeking.   Our battles are spirit, not flesh. The devil isn't impressed nor intimdated by your mohawk, but he IS by steadfastness of heart and mind, and a ready tongue with the gospel.
 
Such is my opinion, based, I believe soundly on scripture. Only two people I can recall were known for their hairstyles: Samson and Absalom, and neither of them are much to be admired. And I believe there is a reason they are both associated with extremes in hair and poor spirits.

I hope I can say this as respectfully as possible. I feel that any hairstyle that is motivated by anything beyond wanting to present an impeccable Christian testimony to outsiders is motivated by the flesh. Back in my "wild" days, I dated a man who was in a heavy metal band. He wore his hair very long and he said his hair was in rebellion to "corporate America". He said his long hair was his way of wagging an OBscene finger gesture in the face of every "yuppie". Having a mohawk to represent spiritual warfare is simply a way to "spiritualize" a hairstyle symbolic of rebellion. We know we are constantly at battle with the enemy and his emissaries. Should I walk around in ripped up clothing to symbolize being constantly "ripped at" by the devil? We don't need outward symbolism to remind us that there are powers warring for our soul.
 
I don't believe the Bible says, per say, that mohawks are a sin. You are referencing an Old Testament law that was specifically for the Israelite men. The Pagans used to shave their heads for tribal identity and ritualistic purposes. A man's hairstyle reflected his tribe, and his status within the tribe. God wanted His chosen people to have no part of such customs, so He set forth a very specific manner in which they were to handle their hairstyle so that they would remain a distinctive, set apart people. If we were bound by the law still you would be absolutely correct - it would be no less or more sinful to don a mohawk than to shave your beard. With that said, we are under the grace of our Heavenly Father. That does not mean God no longer has standards for how we present ourselves to other believers, and to the unsaved world. He still wants His church to be a set apart people, but not through our beards or knotting the four corners of our garments or dietary restrictions.
 
With all of this said, I don't believe we should mistreat someone if they come into our churches with a mohawk. We should welcome them and the elders should minister to them so that they can grow in the grace of the LORD and knowledge of the Scriptures.

I'll kind of echo what DaveW has to say; though I would like to add a thought or two. Certainly hairstyles are largely culturally conditioned. The things they express and connote are far more important than the haircut itself. I think a lot of that has already been hashed out in this thread, and as several have pointed out, can be a hinderance to witnessing and spreading the Gospel; so there is certainly a caution there. Additionally, hairstyles are also an expression of the person sporting them, particularly when they are out-of-the-ordinary. As you stated, for you it is an expression of your ancestry and being a warrior (spiritual in your particular case). Since such a hairstyle is intended to draw attention to the wearer in some way, the question becomes, what are you trying to draw attention to yourself for? Is it for your glorification, or for God's? Are you more proud of your physical hertiage or of your spiritual heritage? Does your outward act of symbolism point to God or point to self? The basis of the line of questioning is whether or not sporting a mohawk makes it easier or harder to lead people to Christ, because our one jOB on earth is to make Jesus look good and be His ambassadors. If you can honestly say it is advantageous for winning souls in American society, then by all means wear it with boldness and make disciples! However, if it is a hindrance in any way to fulfilling your OBligations as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I would invite you to consider whether self-expression is more important than the Great Commission.

I'll kind of echo what DaveW has to say; though I would like to add a thought or two. Certainly hairstyles are largely culturally conditioned. The things they express and connote are far more important than the haircut itself. I think a lot of that has already been hashed out in this thread, and as several have pointed out, can be a hinderance to witnessing and spreading the Gospel; so there is certainly a caution there. Additionally, hairstyles are also an expression of the person sporting them, particularly when they are out-of-the-ordinary. As you stated, for you it is an expression of your ancestry and being a warrior (spiritual in your particular case). Since such a hairstyle is intended to draw attention to the wearer in some way, the question becomes, what are you trying to draw attention to yourself for? Is it for your glorification, or for God's? Are you more proud of your physical hertiage or of your spiritual heritage? Does your outward act of symbolism point to God or point to self? The basis of the line of questioning is whether or not sporting a mohawk makes it easier or harder to lead people to Christ, because our one jOB on earth is to make Jesus look good and be His ambassadors. If you can honestly say it is advantageous for winning souls in American society, then by all means wear it with boldness and make disciples! However, if it is a hindrance in any way to fulfilling your OBligations as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I would invite you to consider whether self-expression is more important than the Great Commission.

I'll kind of echo what DaveW has to say; though I would like to add a thought or two. Certainly hairstyles are largely culturally conditioned. The things they express and connote are far more important than the haircut itself. I think a lot of that has already been hashed out in this thread, and as several have pointed out, can be a hinderance to witnessing and spreading the Gospel; so there is certainly a caution there. Additionally, hairstyles are also an expression of the person sporting them, particularly when they are out-of-the-ordinary. As you stated, for you it is an expression of your ancestry and being a warrior (spiritual in your particular case). Since such a hairstyle is intended to draw attention to the wearer in some way, the question becomes, what are you trying to draw attention to yourself for? Is it for your glorification, or for God's? Are you more proud of your physical hertiage or of your spiritual heritage? Does your outward act of symbolism point to God or point to self? The basis of the line of questioning is whether or not sporting a mohawk makes it easier or harder to lead people to Christ, because our one jOB on earth is to make Jesus look good and be His ambassadors. If you can honestly say it is advantageous for winning souls in American society, then by all means wear it with boldness and make disciples! However, if it is a hindrance in any way to fulfilling your OBligations as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I would invite you to consider whether self-expression is more important than the Great Commission.

I'll kind of echo what DaveW has to say; though I would like to add a thought or two. Certainly hairstyles are largely culturally conditioned. The things they express and connote are far more important than the haircut itself. I think a lot of that has already been hashed out in this thread, and as several have pointed out, can be a hinderance to witnessing and spreading the Gospel; so there is certainly a caution there. Additionally, hairstyles are also an expression of the person sporting them, particularly when they are out-of-the-ordinary. As you stated, for you it is an expression of your ancestry and being a warrior (spiritual in your particular case). Since such a hairstyle is intended to draw attention to the wearer in some way, the question becomes, what are you trying to draw attention to yourself for? Is it for your glorification, or for God's? Are you more proud of your physical hertiage or of your spiritual heritage? Does your outward act of symbolism point to God or point to self? The basis of the line of questioning is whether or not sporting a mohawk makes it easier or harder to lead people to Christ, because our one jOB on earth is to make Jesus look good and be His ambassadors. If you can honestly say it is advantageous for winning souls in American society, then by all means wear it with boldness and make disciples! However, if it is a hindrance in any way to fulfilling your OBligations as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I would invite you to consider whether self-expression is more important than the Great Commission.

I'll kind of echo what DaveW has to say; though I would like to add a thought or two. Certainly hairstyles are largely culturally conditioned. The things they express and connote are far more important than the haircut itself. I think a lot of that has already been hashed out in this thread, and as several have pointed out, can be a hinderance to witnessing and spreading the Gospel; so there is certainly a caution there. Additionally, hairstyles are also an expression of the person sporting them, particularly when they are out-of-the-ordinary. As you stated, for you it is an expression of your ancestry and being a warrior (spiritual in your particular case). Since such a hairstyle is intended to draw attention to the wearer in some way, the question becomes, what are you trying to draw attention to yourself for? Is it for your glorification, or for God's? Are you more proud of your physical hertiage or of your spiritual heritage? Does your outward act of symbolism point to God or point to self? The basis of the line of questioning is whether or not sporting a mohawk makes it easier or harder to lead people to Christ, because our one jOB on earth is to make Jesus look good and be His ambassadors. If you can honestly say it is advantageous for winning souls in American society, then by all means wear it with boldness and make disciples! However, if it is a hindrance in any way to fulfilling your OBligations as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I would invite you to consider whether self-expression is more important than the Great Commission.

I have a few books of his, and have met him and spoken with him.
He did not align with easy believism, nor was he calvinist when I spoke to him, and the books I have do not espouse these things.

I have material from both Chappel and Cloud and said material is very good.

I would not say either of them are without fault.

If you look at the post of yours that I quoted, you quoted someone else and your answer with their comment makes it look like you were saying that. misunderstanding with quotes and context.

As far as the rain - I think it is unimportant, but it does seem to me that you enjoy speculation.

God could easily have explained these things to Noah, but as we are all familiar with rain that explanation was unnecessary to include in the record.
What is clear is that there was a time when it didn't rain, but precisely when that time ended is speculation.

There is no textual reason to suggest that either is anything other than a large man.
Even if it is "cast out ones" that does not inherently mean fallen angels.

Your argument is full of assumption and you are clutching at straws to support an argument that is unnecessary.

There is no need for it biblically and there is no possibility of it genetically.

Do you realize that with this question you're putting limits on the power of God? You're essentially trying to say that God had to have material to create from and that He couldn't have called material into existence by His very word (which heartstrings pointed out). It makes material eternal and pre-existent with God which makes God either equal or subordinate to said material rather than sovereign over all. This is bordering on Gnosticism and/or earth-worship now....
 
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just taking this question to its logical conclusion.

That's because the Bible doesn't tell us that there was a judgment against Lucifer and his angals at this point-it is read into the scriptures.
 
In Gen 1, the earth was unformed and unfilled, because the Genesis account clearly shows that God created in stages, in an orderly fashion. He formed it, then filled  it. Otherwise, by your reasoning, He should have just created it in a second complete, filled and formed, with plants, animals, man, sun, moon and stars all in place. He certainly could have done it, but He chose, in His wisdom, to do it systematically, and I, like Kent Hovind, believe He did it to prove, in part, how stupid evolution would be, that He created it in a different order than they believe.
 
That the same terminology is used in these two places doesn't mean they are the same, because they must be interpreted according to their context: one is creation, the other is judgment. You can't read judgment into one when it clearly, contextually shows creation, ending in it all being 'very good'. It could not be very good if judgment had already occurred and part of His creation had already fallen.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

He created it...Gen 1:1

There is one problem with that theory; God is a spirit....... John 4:24

I generally lean that way, but I don't believe there's enough evidence in this statement to be dogmatic about it. But I don't see this as a serious issue either way-rain, no rain.

Logical conjecture is still conjecture and not indisputable fact and thus should not be the basis of dogmatic doctrine.

I do apologize for having to use internet sources but being an old fossil my memory is not what it use to be.
 
Well first you have to take into consideration the way animals fossilize:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/fossils-rapid-burial
 
Then you have to consider the problem of how they determine the age of fossils . . . . radiometric dating.  And their are problems with carbon dating and other radiometric methods of dating fossils:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
 
God bless,
Larry

I don't see where God commissioned Lucifer to buld a throne, and I don't see where God judged the earth because of Lucifer. God judged the earth because of man.
 
And I repeat:
 
"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex 20:11
 
Made: asah 
to do, fashion, accomplish, make
(Qal)
to do, work, make, produce
to do
to work
to deal (with)
to act, act with effect, effect
So in six days God made, produced,  heaven (singular, the whole space), earth, the sea and everything in them. So, not seeing any space here for a gap. The creation of the heaven and earth were part of the first day, which was marked by the creation of light and its separation from darkness.
If God, in SIX days, MADE, PRODUCED everything, heaven, (not heavenS), earth the sea and all that in them is, which would HAVE to include the separate heavens, AND the  heavenly beings, since they are in heaven, or at least, one of them, the sun, the moon, the stars, everything in six days. Then He rested ON the seventh day. THE seventh day. Thus, there cannot be even one day or 1 million years added to it, if God rested on THE seventh day after making all things in the preceeding six. There is no room.

Genesis 1 still makes no provision for a gap.
There just isn't room for it.
There is no indication in the syntax, the phrasing, the individual words, or the linguistic mechanisms, of a gap in there.

Read what it says, for it says what it means.

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

six days.........
Not that difficult.

Why do YOU WANT a gap to be there?

That will give some answers.....

If you pleae, give me these unanswerable passages in the OT. I am not aware of anything unanswerable in this manner. In fact, the gap was conceived because of those who believed that evolution was unanswerable by a literal 6-day creation, from beginning to end. yet it is completely answerable. I suspect these OT verses are, as well.

Yes, but....the salvation of man is tied to the sin of man, not the sin of angels. That Satan fell before he tempted Adam and Eve who subsequently introduced sin to mankind, has really no bearing on our doctrine of salvation. There is also no need to insert the fall of Satan into the Creation week. Gen 3 does not specify any period of time between the creation of man and the Fall of man. All that can be definitively said is that there was no sin in the first 6 days (Gen 1:31) and that the Fall happened in the first 130 years after Creation because the first length of time mentioned is that Adam was 130 yrs old when Seth was born (Gen 5:3). Therefore, the events of Gen 3-4 (the Fall and Cain & Abel) took place sometime in the first 130 years after God finished creating. We're not told how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden nor how much time passed between the expulsion and the births of Cain and Abel. The Fall could have happned on Day 8 of Year 1 or it could have happned on Day 245 of Year 54 or maybe Day 37 of Year 32. There is plenty of time for Satan to have fallen between Creation week and the Fall of man without reading it into any part of Genesis 1.