The Holy spirit or just holy spirit?

Right Divider

Body part
marke wrote: "I believe the KJV is the most accurate translation of God's Word available today. I have studied the issues pertaining to the validity of various translations and my conclusion is based upon what it seems clear to me to be the most compelling reasoning."

You might be right that it is the most accurate translation but I don't think that it is without error.
Oh no... the most accurate Bible has errors. What do we do now?
 
Last edited:

nikolai_42

Well-known member
nikolia 42, you said: "I see it just as though someone were with a group of people (use the analogy of a visitor at a household) and were the guest of honor. That guest has a limited time to stay but wants to send someone back to those remaining at the household. Before the guest leaves, he gives notice that he will be sending someone and asks the household to receive this second guest in the name of the first guest (i.e. after the first guest is gone).

The " mood" of the verb translated "receive " is the 'imperative mood." Here is definition of the mood:

"Corresponds to the English imperative, and expresses a command to the hearer to perform a certain action by the order and authority of the one commanding. Thus, Jesus' phrase, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mk.1:15) is not at all an "invitation," but an absolute command requiring full obedience on the part of all hearers." (Blue Letter Bible).

The Lord Jesus was commanding them to receive it. That doesn't fit your definition of 'receive."

No...that fits perfectly. If there were something about the command that required it be done immediately, that would be different. But that's exactly what I'm describing. Whether you call it a request or a command (in my analogy) doesn't change the essence of the way I read it. It is intended for fulfillment later.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
So according to your view when the Lord commanded them to receive the Holy Spirit it was not possible for them to receive Him right then and there!

You might have a point if the verb "receive" was in the future tense but it is not!
 
Last edited:

nikolai_42

Well-known member
So according to your view when the Lord commanded them to receive the Holy Spirit it was not possible for them to receive Him right then and there!

You might have a point if the verb "receive" was in the future tense but it is not!

I'm not talking about possibilities. I wouldn't have any problem with them receiving it right there and then - but the Spirit hadn't been given. So this appears to me as a command to receive the Holy Spirit without regard to time.
 

OZOS

Well-known member
I'm not talking about possibilities. I wouldn't have any problem with them receiving it right there and then - but the Spirit hadn't been given. So this appears to me as a command to receive the Holy Spirit without regard to time.
There is a difference between the Holy Spirit being with/on someone for a specific task, and being in someone to give them eternal life. John 20:22 is the former. David asked that the Holy Spirit not be taken from him. The Spirit was on Moses, the Prophets, etc. This is the same case here.

"So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
 
Top