Відео

The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have the verses to which you're referring. As such, I'm cautious to embrace this passage as equally convincing as the ones referenced in the video. Additionally, people who handle venomous snakes to demonstrate their "Spirit-given" immunity are "putting the Lord God to their test" which violates God's command as reiterated by Christ during His temptation in the wilderness. I'm certainly not implying that you engage in such practices or approve of those that do, but certainly it is the verses you mention to which such individuals appeal. Most importantly, the speaker wasn't denying that the miraculous still happens, only that we must be cautious to credit the Spirit at large and not some modern day "prophet" who has God "on tap." Many so-called contemporary prophets have made false predictions, thus nullifying any claims they have made about themselves as scripture clearly teaches. Many healers have been proven charlatans who are more interested in a cult of personality than promoting Christ. While these examples don't negate the possibility and truth of modern miracles, believers should exercise great discernment when encountering those who claim to be particularly gifted in supernatural abilities. I cannot necessarily capture the tone I wish to convey in my response. I don't believe that I'm more knowledgeable or more righteous or even more theologically sound than you. I simply wished to add a caveat to your claim. I hope we can both agree that God is most interested in the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit are simply a means for advancing His kingdom. Have a good day.

@@erikgriffith8857 I am sorry I am not a Theologian. Just quoted from my King James Bible. It is there in NKJV as well. Pasting ESV version also. For me the Bible is the most up to date manuscript. Yes of course, I agree with you that Cults have risen in the name of "Picking up snakes with their hands". This was not referring to us picking up snakes to test God or prove that we are believers. Apostle Paul had a viper coil around his arms from the fire. Nothing happened to him. He did not go around looking for snakes in that instance. ESV version given below: The Great Commission 14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” All I was trying to say that the gifts still exist today based on Jesus' above statement. The main verse quoted by cessationists is 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. 8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if one is a cessationist or now. Both group will see Jesus in Heaven if they are really saved. The only thing is one group will operate in power and gifts of the Holy Spirit(At least they will expect). I expect the sick to be healed every time I lay hands on them. But do everyone get healed? NO. I do not have an answer as to why some get healed and some don't. Nevertheless, I will continue to do what Jesus commanded in the Bible.

So what would "your translation" of 1 Cor 11:5+6 be: "but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short."

@@RebekkaMH13 Well first of all my KJ translation of 1 Cor 11:5+6 does not say “wife” and the reason is because it would be wrong to translate it to wife given that verses 8 and 9 refer to creation therefore this passage has to do with ALL women both single and married. It says that the reason for a WOMAN to have a covering (long hair) is due to the fact that she came from man. Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (shaved bald). And as I mentioned before Paul was not making conditions just examples in that it would look bad if they were to be doing godly things with hair normally attributed to the other sex. Nothing about taking something off or putting something on. Plus what you don’t seem to explain is that IF Paul were meaning a veil then why would the lack of it equate her to being shaved? Without making much of an explanation you are implying that Paul was seeing women EVEN if she had long hair as shaved bald if she were lacking a veil. That is illogical. Now if he was saying that a woman who was NOT COVERED in long hair looked shaved then that at least makes more sense because obviously it implies that her hair must have been short. Lastly (and perhaps due to a bad translation) you stated verse 6 implies that a woman should cut her hair short which is not true. The word in the KJV states “SHORN” which means CUT BALD. It is the exact same word used when Paul cut off all his hair doing a vow (Acts 18:18) Shorn is the same word used when one sheers sheep… one cuts it down to the stubble leaving the skin virtually bald. So whether one cuts it bald or shaves it bald the result, as Paul notes, BOTH cause shame as any sudden baldness would be the normal reaction. For if the woman be not covered (meaning not covered in long hair because she cut it short), let her also be shorn (cut bald): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (cut bald) or shaven (shaved bald), let her be covered (in long hair).

@@robertmiller812 I don't mean any of these points. I agree it could be woman, I'm not arguing it has to be "wife" or "short". I'm arguing that the text clearly speaks of two different things. If she doesn't cover her head, cut her hair. Whatever that cover is, it can't be the hair. How could it mean "if her hair is shorn, cut it off"? It doesn't make sense to say "if she doesn't have hair, cut it off".

@@RebekkaMH13 My point about the woman/wife issue is that if this was not translated correctly then what else was not translated correctly, which can include your particular argument. I do not understand where you got the idea that I said or even implied that “if she doesn't have hair, cut it off", which I AGREE that it doesn’t make sense. I said if she doesn’t have LONG hair NOT if she has NO hair. If the woman is not covered in long hair because it is short THEN she should cut it all off and be BALD. So far you have not addressed the issue about why would Paul say that a woman without a hat or veil is like a woman with a shaved head? This would be a ludicrous conclusion as it wouldn’t be true. Can you answer this question or can’t you? I disagree that it speaks of two different things as the words veil or cloth or any synthetic covering is NEVER mentioned YET (as I mentioned before) hair is referred to about 7 TIMES. There is no way to escape this fact. Zero words for a hat or veil and 7 regarding hair. Paul blatantly states in verse 15 that long hair IS the covering, Therefore the covering is long hair making to be uncovered the opposite which is short hair which makes sense since men are to be uncovered or simply not covered in long hair.

​@@robertmiller812 You say "if this was not translated correctly then what else was not translated correctly" - exactly! I was trying to get clarity on what you think the translation should say. Which is why I asked how you would translate it in the first place. I would also (genuinely) like to know what having long hair has to do with praying or prophecying. It's not like you can grow it out for that, cut it after, and then grow it back for the next time. If the hair is all the text is talking about, why doesn't it just say to have long hair at all times? That would require one sentence. It seems a very strange and roundabout way of saying something in the most complicated way possible, if hair is all it's talking about.