John UK wrote:
...snip
I respect your right to an opinion, but I will have to ask you, as I've asked Jim many times without reply, "If there are "known errors" in the AV, then which "Bible" today has addressed those "errors" and is now the perfect word of God?"
The issue really is, "Do we have an inerrant Bible to read and study?"
If you say we do not, then you can throw sola scriptura out the window, because it becomes meaningless. If you do not have "scriptura" you may as well join the Quakers and use your internal Light.

The reason why we do not need a perfect Bible is because by comparing scripture with scripture we can arrive at all the doctrines of the Christian faith, irrespective of how faulty the bible version. That is the divine genious!

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
snip..
If In Saying "I think we are done", You ("Curious") Are Referring To Your Spirit, Soul & Body; Then, Well, I Guess You May Be Done:
Speak For Yourself.
But, If In Saying "I think we are done"; You Think That You Are Speaking For Me &-Or For Anyone (Or Everyone) Else: Then I Must Say That You Are Sadly & Poorly Mistaken !
....snip

You made a contribution, without invitation, but what you failed to do was engage in a dialogue. If you wish to use these forums for monologues by all means be my guest. But if you post a contribution to other peoples conversation, then common courtesy would demand that you enter a dialogue. Your dogmatism which allows for no discussion may be seen by you as especially spiritual, but to others it comes over as overbearing pride.

Why do you change your posts after a response has been made? Is it to make the other party appear unreasonable?

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
"Curious"...You "Thing" & "It"..
Who The "Freggity" Is Asking For Your Help ?
It Is "Curious" Who Can NOT Tell The Difference Between A Baby (A Substance, An Essesence, A "Thing" & An It) In The Womb (Of Its Mother) & GOD The Holy Ghost (Spirit): Who Is ALSO Referred To In The Historic Authorized Holy Judeo-Christian Bible-Scriptures As "It" !
GOD, The Holy Ghost (Spirit) Is A "Thing" Too--As Christ Jesus Was Referred To As A "Thing" In The Womb Of Mary His Mother By The Angel Gabriel In Luke 1:15 !

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
snip..
IT'S NOT "BLASPHEMY" TO CALL THE HOLY GHOST: A THING Or IT !
THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS CALLED A "THING" IN THE HISTORIC AUTHORIZED HOLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE SCRIPTURES;
"And The Angel (Gabriel) Said Unto Her (Mary), The Holy Ghost (Spirit, Substance, Essence & Thing) Shall Come Upon Thee, And The Power Of The Highest Shall Overshadow Thee: Therefore Also That Holy THING Which Shall Be Born Of Thee Shall Be Called THE SON OF GOD." LUKE 1:35
GOD'S WORD CALLS JESUS CHRIST AN THING Or IT--A HOLY THING !
*"Curious"'s ALSO A THING & IT...A POOR & PATHETIC THING & IT !

John UK wrote:
snip..
2. I post off the top of my head, and am unable to answer this question at this time without research.
snip..
The second I am working on, and would be very glad if anyone has some insight which they can put into words. I am convinced it is right, and I feel sure that if enough folks discuss this, we will arrive at a satisfactory resolution.
.....snip

John UK wrote:
snip...
"...when it testified.." certainly refers to the Spirit of Christ.
But it can also refer to the "spirit of Christ".
To whom did it testify? Not to the world, because the Holy Ghost (he, the third Person) does not do that audibly. To the prophet? Yes to the prophet. Why is it not called the Holy Ghost or the Spirit of God?
Because it is the spirit of Christ, which is an "it".
"Because he is the spirit of Christ, who is a "he". doesn't ring, does it?
But if you think I have not evaluated correctly the reason why the translators did what they did, maybe you have an alternative reason which I have not yet thought of?

And where else in the NT do we learn that there was a "spirit of Christ" distinct from the Holy Spirit at work in the OT prophets? Or indeed any evidence in the OT that this was the case.

John UK wrote:
We could say that Isaiah the prophet is a good example of who this text refers to, especially ch 53.
Isaiah "testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ..."
It was Isaiah who testified as a prophet of God to the people, not the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of Christ testified TO ISAIAH, mind to mind, spirit to spirit.

Read it again ... what manner of time ***the Spirit of Christ which was in them **** did signify etc.

There is no confusion here between the prophet and the Spirit. There is in fact a plain distinction!!

So what does the **IT** refer to? To the "Spirit of Christ" or to something else? If you say something else, then it is not obvious to me what this other thing is. So please explain.

If the IT does refer to the Spirit, then Peter is already aware of his personality so why use IT at all?

John UK wrote:
Okay Curious, it's a fair comment.
Imagine me saying:
Okay Curious, he's a fair comment.
Observe please:
A regenerate human being has an immense capacity for discernment which he/she never had before. This discernment is helpful in grappling with this text. It is helpful, yes? But "it" is the Spirit of Christ within us; take away the Spirit, and the discernment goes with it. p.s Is your spirit a "he" or an "it"?
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:11 KJV
OR
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ who was in them did signify, when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:11 KJV (modified)
Now do you see it? If not, keep comparing the two options above.
Back tomorrow..

John UK wrote:
snip...
Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Peter 1:11 KJV
We are looking at Old Testament prophets in this verse. Did they have the mind of Christ? Yes, because they had the Spirit of Christ. Did anyone in the Old Testament ever refer to the Spirit as "he"? No? If "no", why not?
A person is a "he".
His arm is an "it"
The mind of the person is an "it".
Now it is quite ludicrous to imagine that a translator, who knows for sure that the Holy Ghost is a Person, would make a simple error in 1 Peter 1:11. ...snip
THEY WERE SPOT ON WITH "IT"!

How you read mind of Christ into 1 Peter 1.11 is beyond me. The reference is clearly to the Spirit and he is referred to as "it" in the text!

John UK wrote:
Curious, can I take it that you accept my argument concerning John 1:32, and therefore wish to progress further? If "yes", please post up your opinion as to the text you have quoted. If "no", there is obviously further work to do on John 1:32. It is better to eat one whole banana than take little bites out of several.

John UK wrote:
Not so
Observe please:
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:17 KJV
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26 KJV
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 16:13 KJV
The Holy Ghost referred to as "he".
Observe please:
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
John 1:32 KJV
The dovelike appearance referred to as "it".
If you imagine that the translators of the AV, knowing that the Spirit is referred to as "he", made a simple error in John 1:32, I fear that there is slim hope of you ever coming to acknowledge the truth.
But while there is a hope, I will continue to assist you out of the horrible pit and the miry clay. And I won't do it with website links.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Mike
In reformed circles the word "regeneration" is used in 2 senses.
#1. From the first Spiritual influence from on high right through to the conscious new birth. So this would include awakening, conviction, repentance and faith and the new birth.
#2 Only of the new birth following repentance and faith.
You invariably only use it in its second sense.

Calvinist Understanding wrote:
Why you naughty man!