Does "the Gifts" List Refer To What Different People Get When They *become* Christians?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John1

New Member
Nov 21, 2010
65
1
0
Watchman_2


I hate false religion -- not the person.

And I as well.

Just to clear the air, "I am not a member of the Charismatic movement".

You and I just clearly disagree on scriptural meaning in many areas.

The NewGuy

Watchman_2

To the extent that you stick your head in the sand with respect to your false religion, it would be you, and not me, that does not like yourself. I simply pity people who put their respective tradition-of-man indoctrination ahead of Truth! The Truth sets one free!


I doubt that spending 3-4 hours a day in scriptures is sticking my head in the sand.

The NewGuy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anastacia

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your understanding of Rom. 11 is way off the mark! First, Paul is making the distinction between the two classifications for salvation. -- (1) those he foreknew [v. 2], which are the 'elect' [v. 7] of the endtime and the 'remnant' [v. 5] at that time and (2) the blind [v. 7], which are those of the classification whosoever will, of which some are given the spirit of slumber [v.8].

I'm afraid that based on this incoherent rambling I quote above, it's you that operate under a gross misunderstanding of Romans 11:29. I can't make heads or tales of your statement. At this point, in order to support your error, you are willingly ignorant of the drift of Paul's argument and therefore the overall context in which we find verse 29. You also continue to ignore the point I made regarding the Greek words 'metanoia' and 'ametameletos.' The former means basically 'a change of mind' while the latter means basically 'without regret." The word 'ametameletos' (without regret), found in Romans 11:29, is an adjective that modifies or describes God's attitude with regard to his 'gifts and calling.' Ametameletos, (without regret), in no way describes the state of mind of those receiving those gifts and calling. That would simply be an absurdity linguistically as well as contextually. The word you have in mind is 'metanoia' which is not the word used in Romans 11:29.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anastacia

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
Let me explain it to you.

Those folks that are indoctrinated into the false religions [Pentecostalism and Charismacostalism primarily], which tout 'spritual gifts', are taught that the charismata are only given by the Holy Spirit to those who are true believers. My arguments have been the following:

1. There is no such concept as 'spiritual gifts' in the Bible [the manuscripts].
2. The charismata is not gibberish [called 'tongues' by the false religions] or fake faith healings [as practiced by Benny Hinn and others], etc. -- but, are the ordinary skills each of us have, irrespective of being a believer or not.

Accordingly, I raise Rom. 11:29 as further proof of my arguments. Though the overall subject of Rom. 11 is not the same as 1 Cor. 12 or Heb. 2:4, one can glean the following Bible facts from Rom. 11:29:

1. The charismata is given by God -- not the Holy Spirit.
2. The charismata is given at birth -- irrespective of one's belief status based upon foreknowledge.
3. The charismata is given without repentance -- one does not have to be a believer.

Your understanding of Rom. 11 is way off the mark! First, Paul is making the distinction between the two classifications for salvation. -- (1) those he foreknew [v. 2], which are the 'elect' [v. 7] of the endtime and the 'remnant' [v. 5] at that time and (2) the blind [v. 7], which are those of the classification whosoever will, of which some are given the spirit of slumber [v.8].

As for the underlying relevance of Rom. 11:29, see 11:28. Paul is addressing the 'election', who are touched by God for God's sake -- not because they are regenerate. The elect's calling and charismata had nothing whatsoever to do with their belief status -- but, was decided by God, who foreknew [for the deeper student, based upon the first age] them. V. 30 confirms it. It was the 'gift' from God within them already that allowed them to come into belief from the other's unbelief, upon hearing the Word of Truth. God uses the 'election' to teach the other classification for salvation -- the whosoever will [v. 31].

You say "the charismata is given by God--not the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

Where in the Bible do you get that "Charismata is given at birth"?

You say "the charismata is given without repentance---one does not have to be a believer."

Where do you get that from the Bible?

The Bible clearly and plainly tells us that there are spiritual gifts and that they are given by the Holy Spirit, distributed according to God's will.

Hebrews 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.


We are not even given the Holy Spirit unless God judged us to be worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit. And we must continue to be worthy. I can give scriptures to this if anyone wants.

You say that the Pentecostals and Charismatics have false doctrine like speaking in tongue. I know that too, but your reasoning as so-called proof as to why it is false is---false.

You have some strange teachings, especially here what you say about the believers in Christ spoken of in Romans.

And you argue much about words. The Bible warns about arguing about words, which you continually do. You say there is no "of" in the Greek

language. You say there are no "gifts" in the Bible. You say some other strange things and have wandered into some strange teachings. Either you believe the Bible is corrupt or you don't!

Believers and unbelievers didn't both speak in tongues! So, don't see how you can say that people who weren't saved have gifts like the saved.

The false tongue speaking is spreading into many denominations today. They are not speaking supernaturally. I understand that you want to go against this false doctrine, but you need to obey the words of God. You argue about words. You throw in confusion and mistrust about the word of God, the Holy Bible. You are mean and hateful while doing the arguing---slandering believers and falsely accusing us.


Jude 1:10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.
 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
Watchman_2

And I as well.

Just to clear the air, "I am not a member of the Charismatic movement".

You and I just clearly disagree on scriptural meaning in many areas.

The NewGuy

Since you are not blinded in that unbiblical movement, I suggest that you take a step back and compare the goal associated with the Holy Spirit to what is the resultant effect from those sects that do tout 'spiritual gifts' today.

In Acts 2, the Pentecostal cloven tongue witnessed to the wonderful works of God. In 1 Cor. 12, we see the Holy Spirit working through people for the betterment of the many-membered body of Christ. In Heb. 2:4, we see the signs and wonders and the gift, which is the Holy Spirit, given as a testament to God. Sum total, all given for the higher purpose of glorifying God, through Christ.

Whereas, on the other hand, fake faith healing and speaking in gibberish [misnomer - 'tongues'] results in the glorifying of the individual. When one sees the distinction between the two, once easily recognizes, without a shred of understanding of the Greek manuscripts, that the sects touting 'spiritual gifts' do so in gross error.

Watchman_2

I doubt that spending 3-4 hours a day in scriptures is sticking my head in the sand.

The NewGuy

That's why I said, "To the extent....". I have not seen your position on other topics. However, if you think that the Holy Spirit gives gifts upon becoming a believer, you are certainly in error.
 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
I'm afraid that based on this incoherent rambling I quote above, it's you that operate under a gross misunderstanding of Romans 11:29. I can't make heads or tales of your statement. At this point, in order to support your error, you are willingly ignorant of the drift of Paul's argument and therefore the overall context in which we find verse 29. You also continue to ignore the point I made regarding the Greek words 'metanoia' and 'ametameletos.' The former means basically 'a change of mind' while the latter means basically 'without regret." The word 'ametameletos' (without regret), found in Romans 11:29, is an adjective that modifies or describes God's attitude with regard to his 'gifts and calling.' Ametameletos, (without regret), in no way describes the state of mind of those receiving those gifts and calling. That would simply be an absurdity linguistically as well as contextually. The word you have in mind is 'metanoia' which is not the word used in Romans 11:29.

I am not surprised that you cannot comprehend what I wrote. Based upon your previous explanation of Rom. 11, I could see that you are oblivious to the correct understanding of 'predestination' and 'free will', which Paul was explaining therein. I suggest that you review the Three Earth Ages topic in the Bible Study Forum. Understanding Bible basics, including earth ages and predestination, is really imperative for one's ability to understand much in scripture, including Rom. 11:29.

I have read your description of 'without repentance' [11:29] and I do not necessarily disagree with it from God's attitude. However, your analysis beyond the Greek meaning is in error. If you read the entirety of Rom. 11, God's dispersement of 'gifts' is based upon foreknowledge -- which has absolutely nothing to do with one's status as a believer or not. The gift and calling is given at birth when one's spiritual body is placed into one's mother's fertilized embryo.
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
Watchman_2 said:
The Holy spirit is the gift. Nowhere in the manuscripts does it state that the Holy Spirit imparts gifts. You are simply in error!

You know...I don't really know much about language, although I'd have to say that I'm not going to take the advice of just some dude on the internet. Sorry. But don't you think that all that actual doctoral scholars, men who studied the Bible in it's proper languages, may have brought this up before?? Basing your entire argument on whether or not "of" appears in the Greek language is not the strongest idea I've ever heard, especially when apparently the Greek language has no need of the word 'of' to say what it needs to.

Watchman_2, can I ask you a few questions??
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is also God? Do you believe in the Trinity?
Because I would say that your argument is actually moot. Sure, the gifts, whatever you say they are or to whom they are given, are in fact given by God. But the Holy Spirit is also God, He is part of the Godhead, so I would say that "spiritual gifts" are indeed given by the Holy Spirit, as well as being the Holy Spirit.

I would also have to say that I believe that "spiritual gifts" are different to talents that people are given at birth. I think that it is similar to the two forms of grace that God extends to mankind. The extraordinary saving grace offered to Christians, and the 'common grace' that he gives to all mankind!

[45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:45 ESV)


'Common grace' refers to how God gives good things to all because He is good! This includes talent, of course it does! But when we talk of Spiritual gifts we talk of things our good God has sent to us so that we may use them to glorify Him, further His gospel etc.

Here's another thought about the verse below:

[4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(1 Corinthians 12:4-6 ESV)


You say there are no 'spiritual gifts', that the gift the bible talks of IS the Holy Spirit. If this is the case then why does it say above that there are many gifts? Why does scripture list them?
Sure, we receive the Holy Spirit, our helper, but as He is also God, He empowers us to do things for God's Kingdom!

NewGuy, Anastacia, like what you've said!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anastacia

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
You say "the charismata is given by God--not the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

Yes -- and, the Holy Spirit is the 'gift' given to mankind.

Where in the Bible do you get that "Charismata is given at birth"?

Rom. 11 for one. In the OT, Gen. 1-3, as well as Jer. 1, given further evidence.

You say "the charismata is given without repentance---one does not have to be a believer."

Where do you get that from the Bible?

Same scripture as stated above, plus 1 Cor. 12.

The Bible clearly and plainly tells us that there are spiritual gifts and that they are given by the Holy Spirit, distributed according to God's will.

No, it does not. I already proved your claim false.

Hebrews 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

No charismata in Heb. 2:4. Also, the word 'his' is not in the Bible manuscripts. The word 'will' means 'those willing'.

We are not even given the Holy Spirit unless God judged us to be worthy of receiving the Holy Spirit. And we must continue to be worthy. I can give scriptures to this if anyone wants.

That simply is not true at all. You are oblivious to the two classifications for salvation -- the predestined and those with free will.

You say that the Pentecostals and Charismatics have false doctrine like speaking in tongue. I know that too, but your reasoning as so-called proof as to why it is false is---false.

It is not my fault that you have accepted the false doctrine -- 'spiritual gifts'. I simply point out the Truth that it does not exist in the Bible manuscripts. Your decision to remain ignorant is yours alone.

You have some strange teachings, especially here what you say about the believers in Christ spoken of in Romans.

I simply teach Bible. I find your traditions of man to be very strange.

And you argue much about words. The Bible warns about arguing about words, which you continually do. You say there is no "of" in the Greek language.

If you were not so blinded to the Truth, you would have realized by now that I have proven several times that there is the word 'of' in the Greek -- like Rom. 1:3. The word 'of' is not in the manuscripts where you wish it exists in order to attempt to give credence to your false beliefs.

You say there are no "gifts" in the Bible.

You are lying now. I said there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Bible manuscripts.

You say some other strange things and have wandered into some strange teachings. Either you believe the Bible is corrupt or you don't!

The Bible Truth is not strange at all -- it is just that you don't know Bible! I know that your religion is corrupt, for it is not based upon the Word of God.

Believers and unbelievers didn't both speak in tongues! So, don't see how you can say that people who weren't saved have gifts like the saved.

You are clueless about 'tongues' -- just as you are clueless about 'spiritual gifts'.

The false tongue speaking is spreading into many denominations today.

The fallacy of 'spiritual gifts' has spread too. We see charlatans like Benny Hinn getting rich off willing dupes like you, who believe such nonsense.

They are not speaking supernaturally. I understand that you want to go against this false doctrine, but you need to obey the words of God. You argue about words. You throw in confusion and mistrust about the word of God, the Holy Bible. You are mean and hateful while doing the arguing---slandering believers and falsely accusing us.

One typical denial tactic is to point the finger at the messenger for delivering the message. Since you do not want to believe the Bible Truth, you falsely accuse me instead. I suggest you go back and look at your own posts in which you sentenced me to eternal damnation -- simply for proving your corrupt religion to be unbiblical.

So,


Jude 1:10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

As I prove over and over again, it is you that is clueless.
 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
Watchman_2 said:
The Holy spirit is the gift. Nowhere in the manuscripts does it state that the Holy Spirit imparts gifts. You are simply in error!

You know...I don't really know much about language, although I'd have to say that I'm not going to take the advice of just some dude on the internet.

Since you don't know anything to be true for yourself, why don't you study and find outf??

It is very easy to verify it for yourself on your computer. There are downloadable King James bibles, which include Strong's Concordance numbering. I use the program from E-sword. If there is no Strong's number associated with a word in the English rendered KJV, the word does not exist in the Bible manuscripts.

Sorry. But don't you think that all that actual doctoral scholars, men who studied the Bible in it's proper languages, may have brought this up before?? Basing your entire argument on whether or not "of" appears in the Greek language is not the strongest idea I've ever heard, especially when apparently the Greek language has no need of the word 'of' to say what it needs to.

You sound very foolish with that question. There are so many professed Christian denominations, ranging from Catholicism to Charismacostalism, all claiming to have doctoral scholars that have concluded that their denomination is the only correct Christian belief system and all the others are failures. Yet, each denomination has different beliefs from the other denominations. If they were all 'true' scholars, they would all agree.

BTW, there is a Greek word rendered as 'of''. It is used in Rom. 1:3. One should distinguish the difference when 'of' actually exists and when it was simply added by the translators based upon their own bias. The problem arises when people make a religion [Pentecostalism and Charismacostalism, as two] out of concepts, like 'spiritual gifts', when they do not exist in the Bible manuscripts.

Watchman_2, can I ask you a few questions??
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is also God?

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. See Heb. 2:4.

Do you believe in the Trinity?

Depends on how one defines the Trinity.

Because I would say that your argument is actually moot. Sure, the gifts, whatever you say they are or to whom they are given, are in fact given by God. But the Holy Spirit is also God, He is part of the Godhead, so I would say that "spiritual gifts" are indeed given by the Holy Spirit, as well as being the Holy Spirit.

Well, it is not moot because you have a bunch of professed-Christian denominations [Pentecostals and Charismacostals, as two] promoting the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit gives them 'spiritual gifts' upon becoming a 'true' believer, which manifests itself by having them speaking 'gibberish' [misnamed as 'tongues']. Conversely, those that don't speak 'gibberish' are perceived to be non-believers. In addition, charlatans, like Benny Hinn, are getting filthy rich from the dupes that believe in such nonsense.

As to your other point, there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Bible manuscripts. Hence, your point is moot.

I would also have to say that I believe that "spiritual gifts" are different to talents that people are given at birth. I think that it is similar to the two forms of grace that God extends to mankind. The extraordinary saving grace offered to Christians, and the 'common grace' that he gives to all mankind!

Well, you must also believe that the 'tooth fairy' is Biblical too! Neither concept exists in the Bible manuscripts.

[45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:45 ESV)
'Common grace' refers to how God gives good things to all because He is good! This includes talent, of course it does! But when we talk of Spiritual gifts we talk of things our good God has sent to us so that we may use them to glorify Him, further His gospel etc.

Here's another thought about the verse below:

[4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(1 Corinthians 12:4-6 ESV)


You say there are no 'spiritual gifts', that the gift the bible talks of IS the Holy Spirit. If this is the case then why does it say above that there are many gifts? Why does scripture list them?
Sure, we receive the Holy Spirit, our helper, but as He is also God, He empowers us to do things for God's Kingdom!

NewGuy, Anastacia, like what you've said!!

It states that there are many gifts because God gives everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, skills and abilities.
 

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
Yes -- and, the Holy Spirit is the 'gift' given to mankind.



Rom. 11 for one. In the OT, Gen. 1-3, as well as Jer. 1, given further evidence.



Same scripture as stated above, plus 1 Cor. 12.



No, it does not. I already proved your claim false.



No charismata in Heb. 2:4. Also, the word 'his' is not in the Bible manuscripts. The word 'will' means 'those willing'.



That simply is not true at all. You are oblivious to the two classifications for salvation -- the predestined and those with free will.



It is not my fault that you have accepted the false doctrine -- 'spiritual gifts'. I simply point out the Truth that it does not exist in the Bible manuscripts. Your decision to remain ignorant is yours alone.



I simply teach Bible. I find your traditions of man to be very strange.



If you were not so blinded to the Truth, you would have realized by now that I have proven several times that there is the word 'of' in the Greek -- like Rom. 1:3. The word 'of' is not in the manuscripts where you wish it exists in order to attempt to give credence to your false beliefs.



You are lying now. I said there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Bible manuscripts.



The Bible Truth is not strange at all -- it is just that you don't know Bible! I know that your religion is corrupt, for it is not based upon the Word of God.



You are clueless about 'tongues' -- just as you are clueless about 'spiritual gifts'.



The fallacy of 'spiritual gifts' has spread too. We see charlatans like Benny Hinn getting rich off willing dupes like you, who believe such nonsense.



One typical denial tactic is to point the finger at the messenger for delivering the message. Since you do not want to believe the Bible Truth, you falsely accuse me instead. I suggest you go back and look at your own posts in which you sentenced me to eternal damnation -- simply for proving your corrupt religion to be unbiblical.



As I prove over and over again, it is you that is clueless.

I think most people can see how wrong you are about some of the scriptures and how wrong you are in the way you speak to others. As for what you said where I highlighted in red, If you were a messenger from God, you would not say the things you do. As for you saying I sentenced you to eternal damnation---you are wrong saying I did that. You are wrong about what you say I said, and you are wrong about things the Bible says. When I said you blasphemy, that was that you blasphemy me. I know blasphemy is a strong word, but you said some terrible things to me in private messages and here on the public board. You said some hateful things against me concerning the Holy Spirit, false things you said to me, me a Christian, a Christian who has the Holy Spirit. Since anyone can go back and delete and change things in posts they made, I'm not even going to go back and look for the hateful things you said. Others here have been personally attacked by you too, so others know exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with someone on some scriptures----doesn't give you the right to say we don't love the Truth, or that we don't want to listen to the Holy Spirit.

I had asked the moderator to delete a post of yours where you say terrible things to me and even call me stupid. I think the moderator did delete that one. But I hope the moderator deletes all the posts where you attack others personally. And even if some of my posts defending myself to you are deleted too---then that is okay by me. The attacking you did to me in the above post is mild compared to the things you've said to me in other posts. Now I'm done talking about this topic with you, and I'm done defending myself from your brute attacks.
 

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
Watchman_2 said:
The Holy spirit is the gift. Nowhere in the manuscripts does it state that the Holy Spirit imparts gifts. You are simply in error!

You know...I don't really know much about language, although I'd have to say that I'm not going to take the advice of just some dude on the internet. Sorry. But don't you think that all that actual doctoral scholars, men who studied the Bible in it's proper languages, may have brought this up before?? Basing your entire argument on whether or not "of" appears in the Greek language is not the strongest idea I've ever heard, especially when apparently the Greek language has no need of the word 'of' to say what it needs to.

Watchman_2, can I ask you a few questions??
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is also God? Do you believe in the Trinity?
Because I would say that your argument is actually moot. Sure, the gifts, whatever you say they are or to whom they are given, are in fact given by God. But the Holy Spirit is also God, He is part of the Godhead, so I would say that "spiritual gifts" are indeed given by the Holy Spirit, as well as being the Holy Spirit.

I would also have to say that I believe that "spiritual gifts" are different to talents that people are given at birth. I think that it is similar to the two forms of grace that God extends to mankind. The extraordinary saving grace offered to Christians, and the 'common grace' that he gives to all mankind!

[45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matthew 5:45 ESV)


'Common grace' refers to how God gives good things to all because He is good! This includes talent, of course it does! But when we talk of Spiritual gifts we talk of things our good God has sent to us so that we may use them to glorify Him, further His gospel etc.

Here's another thought about the verse below:

[4] Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
(1 Corinthians 12:4-6 ESV)


You say there are no 'spiritual gifts', that the gift the bible talks of IS the Holy Spirit. If this is the case then why does it say above that there are many gifts? Why does scripture list them?
Sure, we receive the Holy Spirit, our helper, but as He is also God, He empowers us to do things for God's Kingdom!

NewGuy, Anastacia, like what you've said!!


Hi Rach,

What you explain here in this post is right on, and needed to be said. So glad that you came in on this discussion when you did.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BTW, there is a Greek word rendered as 'of''. It is used in Rom. 1:3. One should distinguish the difference when 'of' actually exists and when it was simply added by the translators based upon their own bias. The problem arises when people make a religion [Pentecostalism and Charismacostalism, as two] out of concepts, like 'spiritual gifts', when they do not exist in the Bible manuscripts.

Really? What Greek word is rendered 'of?' How about an example of when 'of'' is added by translators based upon their own bias. Which 'manuscripts' do not contain 'spiritual gifts?'
 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
Really? What Greek word is rendered 'of?'

You can easily verify it for yourself with a KJV online Bible with Strong's Concordance numbering. With the Strong's number, the word exists in the Greek manuscripts. Without the Strong's number, the word does not exist in the Greek manuscripts and was added by the translators in the making of the English rendering.

Here is a scripture containing the word 'of' twice -- once with the Greek word actually in the manuscripts and once by adding it.

Rom 1:3 ConcerningG4012 hisG848 SonG5207 JesusG2424 ChristG5547 ourG2257 Lord,G2962 whichG3588 was madeG1096 ofG1537 the seedG4690 of DavidG1138 accordingG2596 to the flesh;G4561

The word rendered as of 'of' in Greek is assigned the number G1537 in Strong's Concordance, which means -


G1537
ἐκ, ἐξ
ek ex
ek, ex

A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): - after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

Those religious hacks that claim that 'spiritual gifts' originate from the Holy Spirit are remiss in two ways. First, there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Greek manuscripts. Second, the scriptures they rely upon as proof that the Holy Spirit gives out 'gifts' do not contain the origination word 'of' therein.

How about an example of when 'of'' is added by translators based upon their own bias.

See Rom. 1:3 herein above. See 1 Cor. 12:7, Heb. 2:4, etc. If you do a word search with your online Bible program, you can see all instances of the word 'of'' and can see which were actually in the Bible manuscripts and which were added.


Which 'manuscripts' do not contain 'spiritual gifts?'

The Greek manuscripts. The authors of the Books in the NT scribe the Word of God in Greek.
 

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
You can easily verify it for yourself with a KJV online Bible with Strong's Concordance numbering. With the Strong's number, the word exists in the Greek manuscripts. Without the Strong's number, the word does not exist in the Greek manuscripts and was added by the translators in the making of the English rendering.

Here is a scripture containing the word 'of' twice -- once with the Greek word actually in the manuscripts and once by adding it.

Rom 1:3 ConcerningG4012 hisG848 SonG5207 JesusG2424 ChristG5547 ourG2257 Lord,G2962 whichG3588 was madeG1096 ofG1537 the seedG4690 of DavidG1138 accordingG2596 to the flesh;G4561

The word rendered as of 'of' in Greek is assigned the number G1537 in Strong's Concordance, which means -


G1537
ἐκ, ἐξ
ek ex
ek, ex

A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): - after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.

Those religious hacks that claim that 'spiritual gifts' originate from the Holy Spirit are remiss in two ways. First, there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Greek manuscripts. Second, the scriptures they rely upon as proof that the Holy Spirit gives out 'gifts' do not contain the origination word 'of' therein.



See Rom. 1:3 herein above. See 1 Cor. 12:7, Heb. 2:4, etc. If you do a word search with your online Bible program, you can see all instances of the word 'of'' and can see which were actually in the Bible manuscripts and which were added.




The Greek manuscripts. The authors of the Books in the NT scribe the Word of God in Greek.


I know I said I'm done talking about this subject with you, but I'm going to take a chance and hope that you won't say anything too mean to me. I'll be more careful too.

Let's take one thing at a time. From what you say here, you have a problem with the way the Bible was translated with 1 Corinthians 12:7.
You believe the word "of" should not be in this scripture, and you also believe it changes the meaning of what is meant to be said?

Let's look at Corinthians 12:7...


1 Corinthians 12:7 (New International Version, ©2010)


[sup]7[/sup] Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.


Now, can you be patient enough to explain again exactly why using the word "of" in this scripture gives way to a false doctrine? Please explain better how this scripture is wrong, and how do you think it should read?
 

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
There is no such concept as 'gifts of [from] the Holy Spirit' in the Bible.



Now here is the second question I have for you.

You say "There is no such concept as gifts of [from] the Holy Spirit in the Bible."

So then explain this verse. This verse clearly says there are ..."gifts." And this same verse says the...."Spirit distributes them."

Do you believe this scripture is false? In an earlier post you were asked by Nomad...

Which 'manuscripts' do not contain 'spiritual gifts?'

And you replied saying this:

The Greek manuscripts. The authors of the Books in the NT scribe the Word of God in Greek.

So again, are you saying 1 Corinthians 12:4 is false?


1 Corinthians 12:4 (New International Version, ©2010)


[sup]4[/sup] There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.


1 Corinthians 12:4 (New American Standard Bible)

[sup]4[/sup]Now there are [sup](A)[/sup]varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.


1 Corinthians 12:4 (King James Version)

[sup]4[/sup]Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rach1370

Anastacia

New Member
Oct 23, 2010
663
35
0
First, it does not state, in English, that there are 'spritual gifts'. Second, the word 'spiritual' is not in the Bible manuscripts for this scripture. One can verify it for one's self in the KJV with Strong's Concordance numbering -


1Co 1:7​
So that[sup]G5620 [sub]ye[/sub][sub]G5209 (G3361) come behindG5302 inG1722 noG3367 gift;G5486 waiting forG553 theG3588 comingG602 of ourG2257 LordG2962 JesusG2424 Christ:G5547

[/sup]
[/sub]There is no word 'spritual' even inserted by the KJV translators [who bastardized 1 Cor. 12, 14 with 'spiritual gifts']. You are using a Bible that has further corrupted the scriptures.





No problem -- check it out in the KJV with Strong's numbering -

1Co 14:37​
If any man[sup]G1536 think himselfG1380 to beG1511 a prophet,G4396 orG2228 spiritual,G4152 let him acknowledgeG1921 thatG3754 the things thatG3739 I writeG1125 unto youG5213 areG1526 the commandmentsG1785 of theG3588 Lord.G2962

[/sup]There is no such clause as 'gifted by the Spirit' in the Bible manuscripts for this scripture. You are using a bastardized rendering of the Bible.

What do you mean I am using a "bastardized rendering of the Bible"? The KJV is not the only version that says what the KJV says. And, I rarely quote from the KJV. So you must think all Bible translations are "bastardized"?

Never mind, watchman_02, I really don't want to discuss this any more with you. I remembered how you think the Holy Bible is corrupt.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You can easily verify it for yourself with a KJV online Bible with Strong's Concordance numbering. With the Strong's number, the word exists in the Greek manuscripts. Without the Strong's number, the word does not exist in the Greek manuscripts and was added by the translators in the making of the English rendering.

Here is a scripture containing the word 'of' twice -- once with the Greek word actually in the manuscripts and once by adding it.

Rom 1:3 ConcerningG4012 hisG848 SonG5207 JesusG2424 ChristG5547 ourG2257 Lord,G2962 whichG3588 was madeG1096 ofG1537 the seedG4690 of DavidG1138 accordingG2596 to the flesh;G4561

The word rendered as of 'of' in Greek is assigned the number G1537 in Strong's Concordance, which means -


G1537
ἐκ, ἐξ
ek ex
ek, ex

A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): - after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.


I really wish that you would-be Greek experts would toss that Strong's dictionary out of the nearest window. It causes more harm than good when those who do not know Greek use it. Here we have case in point.

'Ek' is a preposition that means 'from' or 'out of' hence 'denoting origin.' It does not mean 'of' in the sense that you have in mind.

You misunderstand your Rom. 1:3 example. Proper names and words borrowed from other languages are 'indeclinable' which means they do not change form regardless of the role they play in a sentence the way nost nouns do. 'David' which is indeclinable is preceded by the preposition 'ek' followed by a noun in the genitive case meaning literally 'out of seed.' If 'David' were a declinable like most nouns it would be in the genitve case meaning 'of David.' Our English translation here is not the result of a translators whim. The use of the word 'of' is required.'

Also, the vast majority of times you see 'of' in your English translation it's a translation of a noun in the genitive case which means 'of' is not going to have its own Strong's number. Again, 'of' is part and parcel of the genitive case and is a required translation.

If you want to make arguments from Greek I suggest you put down your Strong's and get yourself a basic Greek grammar.


Those religious hacks that claim that 'spiritual gifts' originate from the Holy Spirit are remiss in two ways. First, there is no such thing as 'spiritual gifts' in the Greek manuscripts. Second, the scriptures they rely upon as proof that the Holy Spirit gives out 'gifts' do not contain the origination word 'of' therein.

That is just plain old wrong. The Greek word 'charisma' can be rightly translated 'spiritual gifts. I don't know where in the world you got the idea that it can't.

What would you like to do with the following verses?


1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit. . .
 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
I really wish that you would-be Greek experts would toss that Strong's dictionary out of the nearest window. It causes more harm than good when those who do not know Greek use it.

That is your opinion as you are likely already corrupt [theologically] with the traditions of man. If one wants to understand the Word of God, one uses Strong's. If one wants to have a corrupt understanding, one can try another source.

Here we have case in point.

'Ek' is a preposition that means 'from' or 'out of' hence 'denoting origin.' It does not mean 'of' in the sense that you have in mind.

Well, you are in error [again]! Those who want to claim that the phantom 'spiritual gifts' originate [are 'out from'] from the Holy Spirit use the English rendering word 'of' as the basis for their claim. If you have been paying attention to this topic, you would have seen the following scriptures raised:


1Co 12:7​
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

Here, the biblically illiterate claim that the 'manifestation' is the same as 'spiritual gifts' and they use the word 'of' to claim that the manifestations are 'out from' [given by -- originate] from the Holy Spirit.


Heb 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Here, the biblically illiterate claim the word 'gifts' is the charismata and that the word 'of' means that the charismata originates [out from] by the Holy Ghost.


The real problem is not Dr. Strong's work. After all, his concordance is inextricably linked to the existing English rendering [King James Version]. In essence, the real problem is the KJV translation itself, whereby the rendering 'of' was made both for the Greek EK and for the implied of in the genitive case. If the KJV translators had never rendered the Greek EK as 'of' and had reserved 'of' for the genitive implied of only, much confusion could be avoided. When one uses Strong's properly, one can spot these mistranslations within the English rendering.

You misunderstand your Rom. 1:3 example. Proper names and words borrowed from other languages are 'indeclinable' which means they do not change form regardless of the role they play in a sentence the way nost nouns do. 'David' which is indeclinable is preceded by the preposition 'ek' followed by a noun in the genitive case meaning literally 'out of seed.' If 'David' were a declinable like most nouns it would be in the genitve case meaning 'of David.' Our English translation here is not the result of a translators whim. The use of the word 'of' is required.'

Also, the vast majority of times you see 'of' in your English translation it's a translation of a noun in the genitive case which means 'of' is not going to have its own Strong's number. Again, 'of' is part and parcel of the genitive case and is a required translation.

If you read what I wrote directly above herein, I don't think that we are in disagreement.

If you want to make arguments from Greek I suggest you put down your Strong's and get yourself a basic Greek grammar.

You misconstrue Dr. Strong's work. Dr. Strong is not stating that the Greek EK is properly rendered as 'of'. In fact, you have agreed with his definition of the Greek word. The only reason that 'of' is included therein the listing under G1537 is because the KJV translators rendered it such way. The Strong's Concordance is not a Bible Commentary, but is simply a listing of the rendered translations and the meanings of those words in the original languages.

That is just plain old wrong. The Greek word 'charisma' can be rightly translated 'spiritual gifts. I don't know where in the world you got the idea that it can't.

That is your religious indoctrination [brainwashing] speaking and not your knowledge of Greek. You have already been brainwashed into believing that 'charisma' is given by the Holy Spirit; whereby, in actuality, there is no such evidence to support your position. Check it out in Strong's -


G5486
χάρισμα
charisma
char'-is-mah

From G5483; a (divine) gratuity, that is, deliverance (from danger or passion); (specifically) a (spiritual) endowment, that is, (subjectively) religious qualification, or (objectively) miraculous faculty: - (free) gift.


At best, one can claim it to mean a 'divine gratuity', but, there is no way one can get 'spiritual gift' out of it. If Paul intended to say 'spiritual gift', it was certainly in his vernacular to do so, as he did here -

Rom 1:11​
For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

What would you like to do with the following verses?


1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit. . .

I would do nothing with them -- they are perfectly clear to me. In v. 4, Paul is stating that there are many skills and abilities, but one Holy Spirit. In v. 9, you have to go back to verse 8 first for understanding -



1Co 12:8​
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

The operative wording for understanding is 'given by'. If Paul meant that the items listed actually originated from the Holy Spirit, the Greek word EK would have been utilized. But, instead different wording is used -



1Co 12:8​
ForG1063 to oneG3739 G3303 is givenG1325 byG1223 theG3588 SpiritG4151 the wordG3056 of wisdom;G4678 to(G1161) anotherG243 the wordG3056 of knowledgeG1108 byG2596 theG3588 sameG846 Spirit;G4151


It is G1325 in Strong's -




G1325
δίδωμι
didōmi
did'-o-mee

A prolonged form of a primary verb (which is used as an alternate in most of the tenses); to give (used in a very wide application, properly or by implication, literally or figuratively; greatly modified by the connection): - adventure, bestow, bring forth, commit, deliver (up), give, grant, hinder, make, minister, number, offer, have power, put, receive, set, shew, smite (+ with the hand), strike (+ with the palm of the hand), suffer, take, utter, yield.


There is nothing therein to suggest 'origination' like the Greek EK.

G1223 in Strong's -




G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'

A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.

It becomes clear that the Holy Spirit channels the skills and abilities that all have been given at birth.



 

242006

New Member
Jun 9, 2010
298
10
0
I know I said I'm done talking about this subject with you, but I'm going to take a chance and hope that you won't say anything too mean to me. I'll be more careful too.

The Truth that I write is neither mean or derrogatory -- it is simply truth! Being 'ignorant' simply means that one has never been informed of the Truth. Being 'willingly ignorant' is one's own choice. which can be determined in how one reacts upon being informed of the Truth. It is also a statement of fact.

Let's take one thing at a time. From what you say here, you have a problem with the way the Bible was translated with 1 Corinthians 12:7.

Not at all -- the Bible was not scribed in English. By way of a Strong's Concordance, one can correct any mistakes in translation. The important thing to know is that the KJV translators acknowledged that there were errors in their translation. Hence, a true Christian does not take the English-rendered clause 'spiritual gifts' and make a religion out of it when the concept does not exist in the Bible manuscripts in the scriptures relied upon. It is you that have a problem with the Bible as you do not want to acknowledge that the concept 'spiritual gifts' does not exist in the Bible manuscripts.


You believe the word "of" should not be in this scripture, and you also believe it changes the meaning of what is meant to be said?

Let's look at Corinthians 12:7...


1 Corinthians 12:7 (New International Version, ©2010)


[sup]7[/sup] Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.


Now, can you be patient enough to explain again exactly why using the word "of" in this scripture gives way to a false doctrine? Please explain better how this scripture is wrong, and how do you think it should read?

See my posts above to Nomad.

The issue is not necessarily the word 'of' in 1 Cor. 12:7. Clearly, the word 'of' does not exist in the Bible manuscripts -


1Co 12:7​
ButG1161 theG3588 manifestationG5321 of theG3588 SpiritG4151 is givenG1325 to every manG1538 toG4314 profitG4851 withal.[sup] [/sup]

There is no Strong's manuscript number attached to the word 'of', which means it does not exist, per se, in the manuscripts. Hence, for sure Paul is not literally stating that the 'manifestation' originated from the Spirit. If Paul was literally stating this, he would have used the Greek EK [G1537 in Strong's] as he did in Rom 1:3.

If you were able to follow any of the above discourse with Nomad regarding the genitive case, there are times that there is properly an implied 'of' associated with two related nouns in the Greek manuscripts. Nomad covered it well in Rom. 1:3 with 'seed of David'. In English we would say 'David's seed', with the possessive apostrophe s ['s] added to the noun to denote posssession. In Greek, it is not done that way. So, to denote the possession of seed by David, the word 'of' was properly added.

So, the question at hand for 1 Cor. 12:7 is whether the genitive possessive case exists here for the addition of the word 'of'. Unlike Rom. 1:3 where 'seed' [meaning offspring] is naturally attributable to a person [David in that case], there is not a natural attributable possessive linkage of the two nouns, 'manifestation' and 'Spirit'.

Furthermore, one gains understanding from the word 'manifestation' itself -

G5321
φανερωσις
phanerōsis
fan-er'-o-sis

From G5319; exhibition, that is, (figuratively) expression, (by extension) a bestowment: - manifestation.

The etymology of this word comes from the Greek work G5319 as indicated -


G5319
φανερόω
phaneroō
fan-er-o'-o

From G5318; to render apparent (literally or figuratively): - appear, manifestly declare, (make) manifest (forth), shew (self).


The verb form means to make apparent. The resultant noun of the action of making something apparent is what 'manifestation' actually means. Literally, that would be an 'exhibition' as noted in Strong's. And, by extension that 'exhibition' could be an apparent 'bestowment'. A bestowment, by definition, is a 'gift' or 'honor'.

However, since the etymology of the word is an 'apparency', then one properly construes the 'bestowment' as an 'apparent gift' -- not an actual gift. This explains why Paul uses the word 'manifestation' in 12:7; whereas, he uses the word 'gifts', meaning literal and actual 'gifts', in 12:4. Paul is not stating that 'manifestations' equals 'gifts'.

Accordingly, this is not an adjectival [possessive] genitive relationship between the nouns 'manifestation' and 'Spirit'. It is a verbal genitive case as the word 'manifestation' is a verbal noun. Thus, the word 'of'', which is used for the possessive genitive case is not a good rendering. A more appropriate preposition to insert here would have been 'by'.
 

John1

New Member
Nov 21, 2010
65
1
0
watchman_2

. By way of a Strong's Concordance, one can correct any mistakes in translation.

You can't be serious. The Strong's Concordance is one of the worse grammar tools that one has. if you are serious about Greek buy a set Of Kittel's Theological Dictioaries and the BDAG.

Bubba
 

Rach1370

New Member
Apr 17, 2010
1,801
107
0
44
Australia
Watchman_2 said:
Since you don't know anything to be true for yourself, why don't you study and find outf??

I didn't say that I didn't 'know anything to be true'...I just said I wasn't a student of language. And honestly I question whether you are as well. Any number of people can and do claim to be all sorts of things on the internet. When I want to know if something is true or not I do several things. First, I pick up my Bible. If I find any particular passage difficult to understand, I use clearer passages that talk of the same thing to help me understand it. This is what scholars do, its called Hermeneutics, and honestly, there are many, many wonderful, Christ loving, bible centered scholars out there that I trust much more than Strongs Concordence. So I read references, biblical dictionaries, listen to preaches I know to be biblical.

Watchman_2 said:
You sound very foolish with that question... If they were all 'true' scholars, they would all agree.
Firstly I would say that perhaps I am foolish, but if I am then you probably are too. And should all 'true' scholars agree?? What about you...you obviously disagree with them...does that make you untrue or perhaps just the first biblical scholar in the world who happens to be right? How amazing that would be.
Honestly, when it comes down to it, I only say that everyone must agree on the primary Christian issues....those being Jesus' being fully man, fully God, the virgin birth, His death, burial and resurrection. Salvation through Jesus alone, through faith alone. To disagree on these closed hand issues makes one a heretic. But every other, secondary issue, I believe that Christians can discuss and disagree without it being a salvation issue.
So, I'm not getting upset about your thoughts. I think they're wrong, I think the bible very clearly, and quite simply states that "spiritual gifts" do in fact exist.
I'm more concerned with your comments on the Trinity, and that the Spirit is just the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit is a separate person, just as Jesus is. One God in Three persons. This is a biblical doctrine that the historical orthodox church set down, by the Church founders and by the apostles themselves. To believe differently is heretical. I don't like to throw that word around, but I will not shrink away from it at the expense of my God. I'm very much hoping that this is not the case with you, because it, unlike your ideas on spiritual gifts, is not debatable.