Bro. Alan, Simply put, a palindrome is a word, numbers, or phrase that reads the same frontwards or backwards; such as...if you spell "Dad", it's the same either way. Sit on a potato pan Otis! That's one that was pointed out to me the other day. If you start at the last letter in the sentence and work your way to the first letter of the sentence, it will read the same. Hence, DaveW's use of the name "Hannah", Covenanter's sentences, my words in quotations, Bro. Garry's dates, and the answer to the original post's question...when asked if I knew what a palindrome was, I answered, "Huh?"...the answer "huh" is a palindrome.
I can surely understand discussing something; that's part of learning. Here, let me put the Calvinism "debate" to rest right now with just two portions of scripture. 1 Timothy 2:1-6 1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. God would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Christ gave himself as a ransom for all. Does Calvinism teach this? No, they manipulate the plain wording of scripture in order to fit their beliefs. According to Calvinism, all doesn't mean all; it means "all kinds" of men...even though that's not what it means. A simple word study proves that. 1 Timothy 4:10-11 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. 11 These things command and teach. Do the proponents of Calvinism "command and teach" that God is the Saviour of all men? No, they don't. They teach the opposite of what the Bible says AND opposite of what the Bible tells them to command and teach. Calvinsim, with all of its appealing intellectualisms can't rectify itself with those two simple portions of scripture. That alone should show anyone who adheres to it, and it should show anyone who may be on the fence regarding accepting Calvinism...that it's unbiblical. ...and no, I won't debate what I've said here.
I disagree John. Why debate something; thereby, giving those who hold to the doctrine of Calvin, TULIP, Reformed Theology, the Doctrines of Grace, or whatever name they currently choose to refer to themselves or their beliefs as...why give them ample opportunity to promote false teaching? Just as Hymenaeus and Philetus overthrew the faith of some with their false teaching, the faith of some may be overthrown by allowing Calvinism to be talked about. In relation to discussing a doctrine (or set of doctrines) that we find unbiblical, we should heed the Bible's advice and shun them...not engage them. If we do engage them, we should also take the Bible's advice and after two admonitions, we should reject them. God's word is pretty clear about how to handle false teaching and teachers. As to debate, I'm not trying to force my conviction on others; however, I also believe it's wrong to debate. I will readily admit that there have been times when I have entered "debate mode", and it's happened here on OB; however, in my understanding, debate is listed as a characteristic of the lost who have a reprobate mind in Romans 1:29, and it's listed as something we shouldn't do in 2 Corinthians 12:20. Therefore, I try to refrain from debating any longer. We should stand for the truth when confronted with false teaching, but it should be done according to the Bible...and after a few exchanges...shun and reject.
Right. Sorry Invicta, I didn't mean anything by my question. When reading what the translators said, they said that they "carefully" compared. Since they took the time to compare, I would venture to say that they must have realized that since the two accounts were the same, and since the second account gave a more detailed account than the first account, they added "the brother of" to the first account since the second account gave the detail of who Elhanan slew.
I don't think it's likely, but let's say that it's possible that there were two Goliaths...it is possible after all. However, the problem isn't whether there were two Goliaths; the problem is that the ESV contradicts itself in the dual account that I gave above. Many events in the Old Testament have dual accounts listed in both Kings and Chronicles. This is one of them...one can read the verses before and after, and it's obviously the same story, the same account, but they have contradictory claims. That one account alone should show people that something is wrong with modern versions. As SFIC said, and I also checked before I posted this topic, the ESV isn't the only modern version that has this contradictory account. I could have listed the ones that I found, but I chose to use the ESV since it's so popular. The lost world loves to claim that there are contradictions in the Bible. There are none in the King James...but there certainly are in modern versions.
Are you asking for 2 Timothy 2:18? 2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. The previous couple of verses are needed to help explain it... 2 Timothy 2:16-18 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Giving heed to profane and vain babblings instead of the truth of God's word will lead to more ungodliness, and those babblings (like a canker sore) will eat away at those who listen to them and spread them...causing them to err from the truth. For example, Hymaneaeus and Philetus spread false doctrine through their babblings by saying the resurrection is past already. They erred from the truth of God's word concerning the future resurrection, and their profane and vain babblings overthrew the faith of some who had given heed to their word instead of the truth of God's word. As believers, we shouldn't heed anyone who spreads false doctrine through their profane and vain babblings; in fact, we should shun those babblings. That's why we should heed the previous verse that comes before verses 16-18... 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. When we study God's word and rightly divide it, we will recognize profane and vain babblings; therefore, we will know what to shun.
2 Samuel 21:19 (ESV-English Standard Version) And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. ...oops...wait...sorry...just ignore that last verse! After reading the dual account in 1 Chronicles 20:5, the ESV corrects its mistake. 1 Chronicles 20:5 (ESV-English Standard Version) And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. I guess there ARE contradictions in the...err...uhmmm..."Bible".
"Did" you know that King "Tut" could have been a "nun"? Only problem was his "Mom" and "Pop" wouldn't allow him to go against the basic "tenet" of their belief that the "noon" day sun was their god. Well, he was a boy, and a "nun" is female...so there was that problem of the "sexes". Just think, all this happened while he was just a "tot" wearing a "pull-up". I promise that I'm not a "kook".
More akin to your second description I believe. Verses 2-5 of 2 Timothy describe the character traits (for lack of a better description at the moment) of mankind during the last days. Verse 6 then draws a parallel of those previously mentioned "character traits" by saying that type of person is equal to that of a man who takes advantage of foolish women who have given their lives over to the pursuit of sins and lusts. A man could easily take advantage of such women by giving them whatever their sinful desires are (and then promising to give them more), but in the end, he uses that to trap them and use them for his own use (whatever that may be). It all revolves around someone getting what they want at the expense of others...see a weakness in others and take advantage of it to fulfil your own desires. Those last days are described as "perilous". Indeed it is perilous when men turn from all that is godly and right, and their main concern is only wanting to please themselves at all costs. Perilous spiritually and perilous physically.
Sorry, but it's been a while since I read those devotionals, so I don't remember details. Just do an internet search for Spurgeon's Morning and Evening Devotionals...look through them, and it won't take long to find where he takes an Old Testament promise, prophecy, or statements about Israel, and he then attributes it to the church.
Whether this was a misprint or not, and following the subsequent responses, I will still answer the question out of respect. I haven't read any books by Piper. Nor have I read any books by Pink, MacArthur, or Sproul. I did leaf through several Pink books that were offered free (to an ex-pastor of ours) by a traveling evangelist. Just a cursory flip through the books showed me how much Calvinism was promoted in them. I know enough about Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul to know that I don't want to read anything they've written either. Add to that, I don't have time to read. A good friend of mine sent me some books last year, and I haven't had time to finish the first one yet...though I'm close to finishing it. Please don't be offended, because I'm sure that you have certain standards/guidelines that you follow...as everyone does...but I have no desire to read a book that was written by anyone who adheres to Calvinism in any shape or form; therefore, I've never read any books from Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy, Pink, or anyone else that adheres to Calvinism for that matter. The only exception is that I have read some of Spurgeon's Morning and Evening Devotions; however, I quit reading them because they were rife with Calvinist and Replacement Theology overtones.