Gombs:


Heheheheheh

You have a great sense of humor. Hope you're good?

Gombs:


Bobo, get sense na... Please

So the viper bit him and was trying to bite out flesh? When a snake bites, they take off, to get enough time to summon another venom. You seriously thought it bit Paul as a dog would bite anybody? ?

Gombs:


Bobo, are you saying Jesus NEVER DID so? A yes or no would be great!

vooks:
I don't know if He ever did. If He 'exercised dominion over wild animals' please share the verse(s)

Gombs:


Now, that wasn't hard, was it?

Now you are about to know he did. You can see that he as the second Adam, did what the 1st was supposed to do, all, and much more

[KJV] Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

If you disagree, fine! No problem

vooks:
Negro,
What part of this is 'exercised dominion over wild animals'?
he is in the wilderness, animals are in the wilderness, he is with wild animals.
John the Baptist too was in the wilderness for far much longer than Jesus' forty days

Puny brains overheating
You are only good for making sandwiches from Oyaks vomit

Gombs:


No problem

[NLT] Mark 1:13 where he was tempted by Satan for forty days. He was out among the wild animals, and angels took care of him.

vooks:
Luke 1:80 King James Version (KJV)
80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

Gombs:


No wahala!

For forty wilderness days and nights he was tested by Satan. Wild animals were his companions, and angels took care of him.

Gombs:


Now, that wasn't hard, was it?

Now you are about to know he did. You can see that he as the second Adam, did what the 1st was supposed to do, all, and much more

[KJV] Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

If you disagree, fine! No problem

nlMediator:

I'm using the word dispensation in a loose sense.

nlMediator:

Of course, God works as One. Note that the Holy Spirit is not just a Helper, as that word is commonly understood. Jesus used that word to say that the Holy Spirit will be His replacement in our midst. There's no competition.

nlMediator:
It makes little sense to posit that because the Colossians had one letter, everything important will be contained there. So, the other things about Christian living that Paul taught in other books are not that important, including communion, giving to help brethren in distress, spiritual gifts, the return of Jesus, etc?

nlMediator:

So, now I need to be omniscient to comment about your life. But you and your gang tell us what was in Hagin's mind that made him write the book, right? At least in your case, unlike your baseless conjectures about Hahin's motivation, I'm talking based on what you're saying here.

nlMediator:
You reject spiritual experiences people have and call them mysticism, ridiculous laughter and the like. Saying the obvious does not require omniscience.

vooks:
Now,
I have never read that verse before. Thank you kid

and was with the wild beasts: which shows, that he was now in an uncultivated and uninhabited part of the desert by men, and where only the most fierce and most savage of creatures dwelt; and yet was as secure and unhurt by them, being the Lord of them, as Adam in Eden's garden, or Daniel in the lions' den.

This circumstance is only related by the Evangelist Mark, and is what adds to the uncomfortable situation Christ was in, when tempted by Satan; and his being not hurt by them, may declare, partly his innocence, as man, being as pure and holy as the first man was in his state of integrity, when all creatures were brought before him, to give them names; [size=20pt]and partly the power of God, who shut up the mouths of these creatures, [/size]that they did him no hurt; and also may signify, the awe they stood in of him, who, as God, is Lord of all. These creatures were more gentle to Christ, and used him better than the wicked Jews, among whom he dwelt, who are compared to lions, dogs, and "bulls" of Bashan, Psalm 22:12. 

Lobeez:


Care to tell us what kind of animals lived in the middle east desserts? That is if you know

I hope you don't mean 'wild' to be lions and hyenas
Wild means they are animals living in their natural habitats; so it could mean antelopes, locusts, ravens etc get the drift?
Of course they were his companions who else would? I've been to the Arabian desserts and guess what I saw? Camels and falcons

BabaGnoni:
^^^
Are you immuned to recognising sarcasm?
- Everyone does except you. Would have thought once bitten, twice shy by now

Gombs:
Hello BBG
Back from your sabbatical?

LambanoPeace:


No wonder Gombs said you never seem to wanna sound smart. Did you forget to consult your Gill's commentary? Wild means they are living in their natural habitat, shey? What is the natural habitat for fishes? Are they wild? The natural habitat for man is land, those pygmies in the forest are wild men, conversely, we have domestic men and wikd men?

Gombs:


I know, was trying to help your comprehension skills, if any! Now, let's read what your favourite Gills wrote:



http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/mark/1.htm

Now from the above enlarged, Paul has the Spirit of God, and the nature of the Second Adam, why then did he shake off into the fire a snake that was just hugging his hand? Was he scared? Or in pain?

BabaGnoni:

^^^
https://www.nairaland.com/1957135/midas-touch-balanced-approach-biblical/42#27701533
BabaGnoni: 9:48pm On Nov 03
https://www.nairaland.com/1957135/midas-touch-balanced-approach-biblical/42#27701542
BabaGnoni: 9:48pm On Nov 03

Are you dreaming Gombs?
- Sarcasm doesn't suit you. Leave it for the pros

Gombs:


I know, was trying to help your comprehension skills, if any! Now, let's read what your favourite Gills wrote:



http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/mark/1.htm

Now from the above enlarged, Paul has the Spirit of God, and the nature of the Second Adam, why then did he shake off into the fire a snake that was just hugging his hand? Was he scared? Or in pain?

vooks:
I [s]salute the fact that for once you have quoted something other than Oyaks puke. That's Darwinian evolution unraveling before our eyes

Gill is not here to answer me so I can't debate that yet their comments on that verse involve some serious conjecture.If commentators want to fantasize Jesus in the wilderness having some quiet times with snakes and wild dogs, they are entitled to that, just realize there is NO evidence and this is pure conjecture. He was in the wilderness away from man. John was away for years and this may suggest that there is NOTHING in that verse beyond telling us there were wild animals there.

Candour has in very many words called you a m.oron for thinking that only pain from a bite could have prompted his reaction. Are you telling us that had he not been bitten he would have watched the snake dance on his hand through out the night?

And Lobeez reminded you that a snake bite is an injury on itself. having needle-like fangs one inch in your flesh is painful. Scriptures say he was unharmed

Acts 28:5 (KJV)
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm

Paul's reaction to a serpent on his hand is no different from David killing bears and lions; self defence. It is precisely the same reason Oyaks has bodyguards and drives an armored ride. He is too important to die unlike useless sheeple like yourself [/s]

Gombs:


Quit the sidestepping. What prompted Paul to shake off the viper? Was Paul scared or in Pain? You said self defense? Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

Self defense means the snake was attacking, no? You don catch yourself by yourself. Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha


Work waiteth for me. See you in some hours time

nannymcphee:

And fastened on his hand - καθῆψεν kathēpsen. This word properly means to join oneself to; to touch; to adhere to. It might have been by coiling around his hand and arm, or by fastening its fangs in his hand. It is not [size=16pt]expressly affirmed that Paul was bitten by the viper[/size] yet it is evidently implied; and it is wholly incredible that a viper, [size=16pt]unless miraculously prevented[/size] should fasten himself to the hand without biting
just have an open mind, we know you have been taught that he was bitten, now the scenario is being presented in a new light, starting with the original Greek word(which doesn't suggest biting)
if you we're watching someone from afar, seeing a snake coiled around any part of his body, won't you assume he will be bitten, if yes( then your answer will account for the statement made by paul onlookers)

Gombs:


Quit the sidestepping. What prompted Paul to shake off the viper? Was Paul scared or in Pain? You said self defense? Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

Self defense means the snake was attacking, no? You don catch yourself by yourself. Hahhahhaahaahhaahahaha

[img]http://ressurectionplayerz.biz/gif/dance.gif[/img]

Work waiteth for me. See you in some hours time

Lobeez:


No, the viper took off na after biting him to summon another venom

mbaemeka:


You are as close-minded as you accuse him of being and while his is better (because he is sticking to the word) you on the other hand are changing positions with each extra biblical idea that pops up.

The Book of Acts 28 from vs 3-4 says virtually everything that needs to be said and NlMediator and Gombs have done a very good job in showing it. To suggest that the scriptures didn't say Paul was bitten only shows how time has exposed what you truly believe about God or his power.

Vs 3 says a snake fastened itself on Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it not that they assumed. Now we have quibbled over the greek word that was translated to mean Fasten but we have not checked what the word 'fasten' actually means in English. Most English dictionaries define 'fastening' as the act of attaching FIRMLY to something else as by PINNING or NAILING. It never defined fastening as wrapping, coiling etc. Yet you and the rest kept throwing about the word 'wrapping' even when the very scriptures NEVER mentioned anything related to wrapping. The word used was fasten and it means the snake attached itself to Paul as by pinning itself to him or nailing itself to him. This could have only be done by its fangs.

vs 4 then goes further to say that the Maltans SAW the snake hanging on or from Paul's hand. There is no way or even poetic licence that would grant a writer the liberty to express a snake wrapped around a man's hand as it hanging from or on his hand, Which means that gibberish about a snake wrapped around Paul's hand also falls flat in the face of reasoning. I have run a search across many dictionaries and there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING that indicates that when something hangs on or from something it is wrapped around it- nothing! Virtually all the dictionaries I checked now said there must be a slope (downward slope), an inclination, something showing declivity etc. This means that (just like suicide victims or those executed by the gallows) the body must 'hang' or be free in the air with a downward inclign. If per adventure a man is wrapped around a tree branch by a rope one would not be permitted to claim that he hung on the tree. Better renderings for that will be that he was tied there or that he was wrapped there. But when you hear that someone hung on a tree, you know he must have dangled or occupied a position showing him in the air but tilted downwards.

Now the bible says the Maltans SAW the snake HANGING (they didn't assume) and that it FASTENED itself on Paul's hand. We can therefore rightly conclude that it used it's fangs to pin or nail itself to Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it dangle right before he shook or brushed it off himself. This can be the ONLY reason why they concluded he was going to swell and die and also why they got shocked that he didn't. Moreso, This is why they retracted their words that he was a murderer faced by karma and called him a god.

As for those who claim that Vipers bite sharply and release immediately it is not ALWAYS the case. Sometimes, they could bite and hold on for long (if encountering a small prey). And this can be applied to Paul's case because the width of his hand or wrist (around which the snake bit him) is sizeable compared to a vipers regular prey. Even if that was not the case we have to take ONLY what the scriptures say which is: that they SAW the snake HANGING on Paul's hand.

Concerning the use of suffer or felt by different translations the word is better described as felt. Paul felt no harm. Which means the snake should have caused him harm but Paul did not FEEL it. That was the miracle. If we are to debate based on different translations then the argument is DOA because other translations used bite or that the snake latched itself on Paul's hand. Both words connote the same thing- fangs were used and as such immediate pain should have been felt but Paul felt nothing and by so doing, confirmed that Jesus promise in Luke 10:19 and Mark 15 weren't figurative but REAL and LITERAL.

If you want to keep arguing about it and lying to yourselves to accomodate your unbelief, feel free. I have rested my case on this issue.

mbaemeka:


You are as close-minded as you accuse him of being and while his is better (because he is sticking to the word) you on the other hand are changing positions with each extra biblical idea that pops up.

The Book of Acts 28 from vs 3-4 says virtually everything that needs to be said and NlMediator and Gombs have done a very good job in showing it. To suggest that the scriptures didn't say Paul was bitten only shows how time has exposed what you truly believe about God or his power.

Vs 3 says a snake fastened itself on Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it not that they assumed. Now we have quibbled over the greek word that was translated to mean Fasten but we have not checked what the word 'fasten' actually means in English. Most English dictionaries define 'fastening' as the act of attaching FIRMLY to something else as by PINNING or NAILING. It never defined fastening as wrapping, coiling etc. Yet you and the rest kept throwing about the word 'wrapping' even when the very scriptures NEVER mentioned anything related to wrapping. The word used was fasten and it means the snake attached itself to Paul as by pinning itself to him or nailing itself to him. This could have only be done by its fangs.

vs 4 then goes further to say that the Maltans SAW the snake hanging on or from Paul's hand. There is no way or even poetic licence that would grant a writer the liberty to express a snake wrapped around a man's hand as it hanging from or on his hand, Which means that gibberish about a snake wrapped around Paul's hand also falls flat in the face of reasoning. I have run a search across many dictionaries and there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING that indicates that when something hangs on or from something it is wrapped around it- nothing! Virtually all the dictionaries I checked now said there must be a slope (downward slope), an inclination, something showing declivity etc. This means that (just like suicide victims or those executed by the gallows) the body must 'hang' or be free in the air with a downward inclign. If per adventure a man is wrapped around a tree branch by a rope one would not be permitted to claim that he hung on the tree. Better renderings for that will be that he was tied there or that he was wrapped there. But when you hear that someone hung on a tree, you know he must have dangled or occupied a position showing him in the air but tilted downwards.

Now the bible says the Maltans SAW the snake HANGING (they didn't assume) and that it FASTENED itself on Paul's hand. We can therefore rightly conclude that it used it's fangs to pin or nail itself to Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it dangle right before he shook or brushed it off himself. This can be the ONLY reason why they concluded he was going to swell and die and also why they got shocked that he didn't. Moreso, This is why they retracted their words that he was a murderer faced by karma and called him a god.

As for those who claim that Vipers bite sharply and release immediately it is not ALWAYS the case. Sometimes, they could bite and hold on for long (if encountering a small prey). And this can be applied to Paul's case because the width of his hand or wrist (around which the snake bit him) is sizeable compared to a vipers regular prey. Even if that was not the case we have to take ONLY what the scriptures say which is: that they SAW the snake HANGING on Paul's hand.

Concerning the use of suffer or felt by different translations the word is better described as felt. Paul felt no harm. Which means the snake should have caused him harm but Paul did not FEEL it. That was the miracle. If we are to debate based on different translations then the argument is DOA because other translations used bite or that the snake latched itself on Paul's hand. Both words connote the same thing- fangs were used and as such immediate pain should have been felt but Paul felt nothing and by so doing, confirmed that Jesus promise in Luke 10:19 and Mark 15 weren't figurative but REAL and LITERAL.

If you want to keep arguing about it and lying to yourselves to accomodate your unbelief, feel free. I have rested my case on this issue.

Gombs:

Oh! Stealth mode now? Heheheheheh, who wouldn't after some disastrous campaign?

nannymcphee:


While they might not be against it, much emphasis is placed on getting it NOW, the same way churches are not Aainst holy living & righteousness but much emphasis is placed on prosperity and you know what that has led to today, people are no longer heavenly conscious but earthly conscious, how best they can live the good life here



You didn't quite follow then, the issue wasn't that instant miracles/harvest wasn't possible rather it was an issue of the "instantness" being hinged on one's great faith !!

In order words, if you have great faith you can command your harvest to come now.

That's why I kicked against hezekiah's prayer as an example. Nothing there suggests that he got an instant reply from God because of his great faith but rather Gods mercy was at work there( I'm in no way saying his prayer had nothing to do with God changing his mind) but it was not his faith per say that moved God to add 15yrs INSTANTLY

Talking about instant harvest & "if thou shall say unto this mountain be that cast into the sea....." Why didn't Jesus command figs to appear on that tree that moment he needed them? After all he was hungry, this is the same Jesus that turned water into wine instantly!!!!

Maybe he didn't have "great faith" at that point!!!!

btw, Jesus said if you have faith as a muster seed(it has been established that the mustard seed is very small), one will say to the mountain

Gombs et al will have us believe that it is great faith that does the work & not the small muster seed size of faith that does the work

Just before you open ur mouth, I have the book "how to make your faith work" & I was in the meeting it was first taught:Charismatic Renewal Conference (this directed at Gombs)

mbaemeka:

You once posited that there was nothing like an instant harvest

If anyone is fixated on getting instant miracles they should be commended and not derided.

That the scriptures related instant miracles to having great faith should not also be overlooked or swept aside

Now Pastors who teach people to grow their faiths and expect instant miracles should be praised for trying to help people grow their faiths to the level that God expects

You must be reading another bible to claim that Hezekiah didn't get an instant miracle.

At the end of the day, God doesn't live in time and so it doesn't exist to him. Anyone who comes to God must be aware of this and also aware that God rewards those that seek him

But if we expect an instant miracle but it takes time then nothing is wrong (and I have never said anything was)

But there are different levels of receiving and we should desire to grow to the highest

I know you will ask me for Ebola and Bokoharam and even if I say anything you would conclude that I am a liar so I would recycle an old testimony I have. I prayed for someone with full-blown AIDS and I expected an instant miracle. The guy still died. (Don't tell me anything about sovereignty, sickness is of the devil and God came to destroy the works of the devil). Shortly after, I prayed for someone else that was bedridden and she got up INSTANTLY. It shocked even those around me.

I am still growing my faith, I never claimed to have attained all the heights there is to attain. I prayed for Dr Adedevoh while she was down with Ebola everyday till she was pronounced dead. It felt like my faith failed but that's not the excuse given. I didn't also use the cheapest escape route of 'sovereignty'. I told myself, "next time, I will get it right" and I will.

What have you done with your faith? How much has it achieved for you? How many lost souls have you seen repent?

Not everyone in God's house is an instrument of value. Some will get no rewards but their salvation will be intact- they are the social critics and co. Others will receive rewards for doing or at least trying to do. I am one of them,

mbaemeka:

The Book of Acts 28 from vs 3-4 says virtually everything that needs to be said and NlMediator and Gombs have done a very good job in showing it. To suggest that the scriptures didn't say Paul was bitten only shows how time has exposed what you truly believe about God or his power.

mbaemeka:

Vs 3 says a snake fastened itself on Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it not that they assumed.

mbaemeka:

Now we have quibbled over the greek word that was translated to mean Fasten but we have not checked what the word 'fasten' actually means in English. Most English dictionaries define 'fastening' as the act of attaching FIRMLY to something else as by PINNING or NAILING. It never defined fastening as wrapping, coiling etc. Yet you and the rest kept throwing about the word 'wrapping' even when the very scriptures NEVER mentioned anything related to wrapping. The word used was fasten and it means the snake attached itself to Paul as by pinning itself to him or nailing itself to him. This could have only be done by its fangs.

vs 4 then goes further to say that the Maltans SAW the snake hanging on or from Paul's hand. There is no way or even poetic licence that would grant a writer the liberty to express a snake wrapped around a man's hand as it hanging from or on his hand, Which means that gibberish about a snake wrapped around Paul's hand also falls flat in the face of reasoning. I have run a search across many dictionaries and there is NOTHING absolutely NOTHING that indicates that when something hangs on or from something it is wrapped around it- nothing! Virtually all the dictionaries I checked now said there must be a slope (downward slope), an inclination, something showing declivity etc. This means that (just like suicide victims or those executed by the gallows) the body must 'hang' or be free in the air with a downward inclign. If per adventure a man is wrapped around a tree branch by a rope one would not be permitted to claim that he hung on the tree. Better renderings for that will be that he was tied there or that he was wrapped there. But when you hear that someone hung on a tree, you know he must have dangled or occupied a position showing him in the air but tilted downwards.

Now the bible says the Maltans SAW the snake HANGING (they didn't assume) and that it FASTENED itself on Paul's hand. We can therefore rightly conclude that it used it's fangs to pin or nail itself to Paul's hand and that the Maltans saw it dangle right before he shook or brushed it off himself. This can be the ONLY reason why they concluded he was going to swell and die and also why they got shocked that he didn't. Moreso, This is why they retracted their words that he was a murderer faced by karma and called him a god.

mbaemeka:

As for those who claim that Vipers bite sharply and release immediately it is not ALWAYS the case. Sometimes, they could bite and hold on for long (if encountering a small prey). And this can be applied to Paul's case because the width of his hand or wrist (around which the snake bit him) is sizeable compared to a vipers regular prey. Even if that was not the case we have to take ONLY what the scriptures say which is: that they SAW the snake HANGING on Paul's hand.

mbaemeka:

Concerning the use of suffer or felt by different translations the word is better described as felt. Paul felt no harm. Which means the snake should have caused him harm but Paul did not FEEL it. That was the miracle. If we are to debate based on different translations then the argument is DOA because other translations used bite or that the snake latched itself on Paul's hand. Both words connote the same thing- fangs were used and as such immediate pain should have been felt but Paul felt nothing and by so doing, confirmed that Jesus promise in Luke 10:19 and Mark 15 weren't figurative but REAL and LITERAL.

If you want to keep arguing about it and lying to yourselves to accomodate your unbelief, feel free. I have rested my case on this issue.

Lobeez:


Bla bla bla bla bla
If you were to fill in the gap here what would it be?

The pretty viper is_________on a tree

a. Hanging
b. Fastened
c. sitting
d. jumping





Snakes actually avoid biting as much as possible especially humans, in fact, they like all animals see humans as predators so their natural instinct most times will be to avoid confrontations. Yes, I did say that vipers are fast strikers and yes you are right they sometimes bite and hold small prey. It could only have driven its fangs into Paul only if Paul tried to hold it firmly and not let go. Almost all snakes behave this way, venomous or non venomous.
The snake probably hung onto Pauls hands by its tail like in the attached picture