kwikphilly Posted August 24, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2015 Blessings Shiloh,,,,,, I tried earlier to explain that the entire Scripture verse is being mis-interpreted & that Jesus is NOT talking about children but believers who have the humility & modesty that an innocent child has,the same qualities ,I am glad you brought it up again & elaborated,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we see this often when Scriptures are taken out of context,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the only parallel here is that angels are mentioned,,,,,,,,by the Apostles & by Jesus,,,, Jesus certainly knows what the angels are all about & He does not elaborate simply because He is our ALL in ALL and if we needed to know more He would have said more,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the angels do what they are assigned to do,period,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thank you ,Shiloh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,for for your eloquent explanation,,,,,...........it is 100% accurate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Amen! With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted August 24, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,991 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,689 Content Per Day: 11.81 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2015 God does use angels for His messengers as He pleases but God always comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted August 24, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 24, 2015 There is no doctrine in Scripture that we have personal angels. Their statement only shows that these early believers still had a residue of Jewish superstitions that they had not managed to discard. Nothing in the Bible indicates that God assigns our personal angel. Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works? If you see a group of kids playing with their own balls, each one having their own ball, you would say "their balls." If you see a group of kids playing with one ball, you would say "their ball." "Their angels" like "their balls" each one has their own. That makes no more sense than having a rally for all of the constituents in Texas and saying the term 'their Representatives' means that each and every one of us has our own in Washington. There is NO scriptural evidence that we each have our own angel in Heaven. But they are the representatives of those particular constituents - their representatives - and not the representatives of any other body of constituents and so those representatives are theirs (that is a possessive pronoun) and it means those representatives belong to them and are to pay attention to them exclusively. I'm just at a loss as to why simply rules of grammar don't apply to people's reading of the English language when it comes to their beliefs. I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 There is no doctrine in Scripture that we have personal angels. Their statement only shows that these early believers still had a residue of Jewish superstitions that they had not managed to discard. Nothing in the Bible indicates that God assigns our personal angel. Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works? If you see a group of kids playing with their own balls, each one having their own ball, you would say "their balls." If you see a group of kids playing with one ball, you would say "their ball." "Their angels" like "their balls" each one has their own. That makes no more sense than having a rally for all of the constituents in Texas and saying the term 'their Representatives' means that each and every one of us has our own in Washington. There is NO scriptural evidence that we each have our own angel in Heaven. But they are the representatives of those particular constituents - their representatives - and not the representatives of any other body of constituents and so those representatives are theirs (that is a possessive pronoun) and it means those representatives belong to them and are to pay attention to them exclusively. I'm just at a loss as to why simply rules of grammar don't apply to people's reading of the English language when it comes to their beliefs. I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. I would actually appreciate it if you didn't use sarcasm. I fixed your quote also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. I would actually appreciate it if you didn't use sarcasm. I fixed your quote also Sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder, therese. You are fond of telling others they don't read, speak or understand the English language. For instance, from one of your earlier posts: " "Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works?" I'm just pointing out your grammar and spelling. And you misspelled 'children'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. I would actually appreciate it if you didn't use sarcasm. I fixed your quote also Sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder, therese. You are fond of telling others they don't read, speak or understand the English language. For instance, from one of your earlier posts: " "Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works?" I'm just pointing out your grammar and spelling. And you misspelled 'children'.. Why are you acting the part of a grammar nazi by pointing out typos? By the way sar·casm ˈsärˌkazəm/ noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Why are you dredging up something that was already resolved and trying to stir things up again? Edited August 25, 2015 by thereselittleflower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. I would actually appreciate it if you didn't use sarcasm. I fixed your quote also Sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder, therese. You are fond of telling others they don't read, speak or understand the English language. For instance, from one of your earlier posts: " "Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works?" I'm just pointing out your grammar and spelling. And you misspelled 'children'.. Why are you acting the part of a grammar nazi by pointing out typos? By the way sar·casm ˈsärˌkazəm/ noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Why are you dredging up something that was already resolved and trying to stir things up again? If you don't want to be corrected and addressed sarcastically maybe you should try to not do that to others. There really is NO need for you to post the definition of 'sarcastic'. I am fully cognizant of the meaning of the word. Nor to infer that I'm a Nazi. Honestly....pot, meet black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted August 25, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm at a loss as to what 'simply rules of grammar' means. The proper use of words in relationship to each other, in this case, the use of the word "their" in "their angels" consistent with its definition showing possession. "their angels" means "the angels that belong to them (the children)" just as "their balls" means "the balls that belong to them" They don't belong to anyone else. They belong to them. Please reread my last comment and see if you can get my meaning. I would actually appreciate it if you didn't use sarcasm. I fixed your quote also Sarcasm is in the eye of the beholder, therese. You are fond of telling others they don't read, speak or understand the English language. For instance, from one of your earlier posts: " "Bopeep, really? You strain at gnats and swallow camels? Jesus was talking about multiple children so there are multiple angels involved "Their (multiple chidlren) angels (multiple angels)" If he said "their angel" then that would mean they all share ONE angel. He didn't say that. He said "their angels" meaning each one has their own in heaven beholding the face of God. Do you really not understand now the English language works?" I'm just pointing out your grammar and spelling. And you misspelled 'children'.. Why are you acting the part of a grammar nazi by pointing out typos? By the way sar·casm ˈsärˌkazəm/ noun the use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Why are you dredging up something that was already resolved and trying to stir things up again? If you don't want to be corrected and addressed sarcastically maybe you should try to not do that to others. There really is NO need for you to post the definition of 'sarcastic'. I am fully cognizant of the meaning of the word. Nor to infer that I'm a Nazi. Honestly....pot, meet black. I am not going to be drawn into conflict with you over something that is settled and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts