Random Questions Thread

[Amanah]

I'm part of a ladies bible study group and these are some of the questions that are being raised.

Should any of the Apocrypha be included in the Cannon, such as the books of Maccabees?

Are there some books in the cannon that have questionable relevance such as Esther, Song of Solomon?

Is the KJV the more accurate translation?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm part of a ladies bible study group and these are some of the questions that are being raised.

Should any of the Apocrypha be included in the Cannon, such as the books of Maccabees?

Are there some books in the cannon that have questionable relevance such as Esther, Song of Solomon?

Is the KJV the more accurate translation?

We should know all the material which was accessible to the first century people of Judea. Also be able to read all interpretations of the English Bible. Being in a multilingual church I do Bible studies not only in English, but use the "birth" languages of those in our church family. So, if you are Spanish, I'll have you read in Spanish. Haitian, Creole, or French. Brazilian, Portuguese. I do this because it helps with their understanding far quicker than using English to relay the meanings of the verses. When I teach or preach I use an interpreter. I've learned that the English doesn't do a very good job in translating certain words, or phrases. While I love the KJV (because mainly the Bible I was raised with) some passages are lost among those who don't understand Elizabethan English. Religion is all about traditions. The KJV is part of that tradition. We must use everything available to us to teach preach and reach those around us. But, also keep in mind that it is the Holy Ghost and the individual who must be in union to be able to understand Truth.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

We should know all the material which was accessible to the first century people of Judea. Also be able to read all interpretations of the English Bible. Being in a multilingual church I do Bible studies not only in English, but use the "birth" languages of those in our church family. So, if you are Spanish, I'll have you read in Spanish. Haitian, Creole, or French. Brazilian, Portuguese. I do this because it helps with their understanding far quicker than using English to relay the meanings of the verses. When I teach or preach I use an interpreter. I've learned that the English doesn't do a very good job in translating certain words, or phrases. While I love the KJV (because mainly the Bible I was raised with) some passages are lost among those who don't understand Elizabethan English. Religion is all about traditions. The KJV is part of that tradition. We must use everything available to us to teach preach and reach those around us. But, also keep in mind that it is the Holy Ghost and the individual who must be in union to be able to understand Truth.

Thank you Elder

[shag]

Dialogue back and forth regarding ROM 9:6 not all that are descended….and Eph 2 commonwealth of Israel, and true Israel….
This disp guy seems to hold his own, at least with the one or two he’s “debating”. If u click on all the discussion comments.


I don’t know that I would know how to further/better respond


https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16j...ibextid=wwXIfr

[shag]

Since this is a question thread, I’ll go ahead and throw one or two out.

In acts eight, why was the spirit not poured out until those at Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had received the gospel and they sent Peter and John. Phillip was there standing up with the 11 when Peter Preached in Acts II in Jerusalem, what necessity was there then, for Peter and John to show up with regard to everyone receiving the Holy Ghost?

IOW, what did Phillip the apostle lack,(or did he?) having been there standing up with the 11, in acts 2 to hear Peter lay it out? (Regarding holyghost outpour)” in Acts 8)

[shag]

Why is the book of James addressed to the 12 tribes dispersed?
More specifically, does that conflict with dispensationalists…-
Do they just say, it’s not really to the entire 12 tribes, but to the Jewish Christians that were descended from the 12 tribes, or?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by shag

Since this is a question thread, I’ll go ahead and throw one or two out.

In acts eight, why was the spirit not poured out until those at Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans had received the gospel and they sent Peter and John. Phillip was there standing up with the 11 when Peter Preached in Acts II in Jerusalem, what necessity was there then, for Peter and John to show up with regard to everyone receiving the Holy Ghost?

IOW, what did Phillip the apostle lack,(or did he?) having been there standing up with the 11, in acts 2 to hear Peter lay it out? (Regarding holyghost outpour)” in Acts 8)

To show Peter and John that the Samaritans were also recipients of salvation.

[shag]

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles[b] performed, he was amazed.

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,


This SEEMS to insinuate that Peter, (and I suppose possibly John), needed to be present for the spirit to be poured out. Else why didn’t Phillip as an apostle lay his hands on them that they would receive the spirit?

Peter was present in Acts 2,8,10, then Paul sort of took over at Acts 19, when everyone was receiving the Holy Ghost.

Pattern or no pattern, just coincidence?
(Peter w the Holyghost “keys” ?)

I don’t wanna read more into this than what should be read into it, but I don’t wanna be naïve in that it’s kind of strange to me that Phillip seemed to lack something.

[Amanah]

Philip was an evangelist, not an Apostle.

Philip was coordinating his ministry with the Apostles at Jerusalem and they chose to be involved with the Samaritan ministry under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Because, as when Cornelius and his house received the Spirit, the Apostles were able to verify that the new covenant was inclusive of all people groups.

[shag]

Ahhhh there it is, I had the wrong Phillip

He was chosen by the 12 with Stephen in Acts 6:5

Got it.