| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
stonebeard 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
 Posted: August 23 2012 at 10:35 |
 Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Figured I'd respond here instead.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— |
Give me your in interpretation of the passage, because I cannot for the life of me find anything worth calling good in it. I parsed through and saw this gem, though. This is just an odious, life-denying philosophy to me, and its passage like this that make me wonder why some Christians would see the value in seeing they are nothing without God. And I take issue as well with the "believing in him and not being put to shame" nonsense. This passage, to my eyes is terrible, soul-crushing nonsense. I am wondering if I am missing something, because I don't think a person could choose to believe this kind of faith is a good thing, which makes me all the more firm in my statement that belief is not a choice, but a conclusion based on experience and subconscious thought.
I get that you think this passage reflects the reality of the world in some way, but...do you actually want that to be true? Sounds horrible to me.
|
What ever does it matter if I want it to be true? Do my desires determine truth? Should my idea of God determine what he is really like? Should my desire for free will in my salvation determine whether I have it? I don't believe this because I think it's nice, or because I want to, or because it makes me feel good. I believe it because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that His word is truth.
My interpretation of the passage is that it means exactly what it says. No one receives injustice from God. We all deserve death, and yet some, by the grace of God, receive eternal life. I don't know why He chooses some and not others. I don't know why He desires all people to be saved but only chooses some. I do know, however, that God is Love, that He is perfect, righteous, just, and merciful, and that whatever He wills is what is good, and I know this because He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, and that this Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world out of love for His Father and for us, and that God proved that Jesus was His own Son by raising Him from the dead.
|
It's not so much that I think reality is contingent on our desires, but I think the metaphysical claims of Christianity are, on their face, so ridiculous that I'm having trouble finding a reason for people subjecting themselves to this anti-human totalitarianism. I am not trying to be rude, but given the thread and circumstance, I probably am.
|
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 19:40 |
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.  
|
|
|
|
Morsenator
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2009
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 397
|
Posted: August 24 2012 at 01:48 |
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase, "If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I pretty much agree on this, although I'd like to point that it's one heck of a complex process, and I'm not completely sure if it is even theoretically possible to build a computer which is able to calculate it (still would be no problemo for God, of course). I'm interested: you seem to somewhat support the information processing theory established in psychology after the cognitive revolution (something like this basic model here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki_.pdf&page=1), am I correct?
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 24 2012 at 08:01 |
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 06 2012 at 17:23 |
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
Sorry I neglected to respond to this in a timely fashion.
Even a spontaneous decision is not a truly random one. It is caused by the mechanisms in the brain.
I disagree that the exact same inputs could result in a variety of outputs. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they can.
I disagree that people are different from machines. Nothing wrong with being a machine, you know. Even School House Rock joyfully confessed that one.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:21 |
|
It's really just a philosophical puzzle with o way to prove or disprove it, but how would you respond to the thought experiment about a donkey having to choose between two pieces of food equidistant from him, with no discernible different between them and no inherent preference for left or right? If the two choices are truly identical, how would such a decision be made unless the mind is capable of free will?
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:27 |
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
Sorry I neglected to respond to this in a timely fashion.
Even a spontaneous decision is not a truly random one. It is caused by the mechanisms in the brain.
I disagree that the exact same inputs could result in a variety of outputs. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they can.
I disagree that people are different from machines. Nothing wrong with being a machine, you know. Even School House Rock joyfully confessed that one.
|
I don't really know anything about how the human brain works, but don't scientists have ideas like chaos theory that say there is randomness in any system?
In my worldview class the other day, we were actually just talking about the idea that naturalism presupposes determinism, and I brought up your view.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:32 |
thellama73 wrote:
It's really just a philosophical puzzle with o way to prove or disprove it, but how would you respond to the thought experiment about a donkey having to choose between two pieces of food equidistant from him, with no discernible different between them and no inherent preference for left or right? If the two choices are truly identical, how would such a decision be made unless the mind is capable of free will?
|
Buridan's ass? He will not starve to death. Why? Because he will eat both of them. He has two meals instead of one! 
++++
I understand that's glib and ignores the heart of the matter, so let me address it here:
The ass will subconsciously choose one, just as we make subconscious choices all the time. Jackasses do not regard "equal" or "not equal," and really, neither do you. You make a choice based on the data your brain observes whether "you" like it or not.
That "random" thing you do has a cause. Do you really believe in uncaused things?
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:34 |
|
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:37 |
Epignosis wrote:
Buridan's ass? He will not starve to death. Why? Because he will eat both of them. He has two meals instead of one!
++++
I understand that's glib and ignores the heart of the matter, so let me address it here:
The ass will subconsciously choose one, just as we make subconscious choices all the time. Jackasses do not regard "equal" or "not equal," and really, neither do you. You make a choice based on the data your brain observes whether "you" like it or not.
That "random" thing you do has a cause. Do you really believe in uncaused things?
|
But what makes the subconscious choose left rather than right if there is no difference between the two? I don't believe in uncaused things, but I believe the will can be a cause. Just because my will can cause me to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it must.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:44 |
thellama73 wrote:
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
You have misconstrued my position. I wholeheartedly believe you have freewill, but I am a compatibalist, meaning that freewill is not random. You choose to have another beer (or not) because of causes that press upon your mind. This choice is not an illusion. It is caused, however. Your choices are therefore new causes on future choices. Isn't that cool?
As for the justice system, and recognizing the thread we are in, I will answer the way I wish to: The Bible says we are born sinners. That is, we are wired to f**k up.
Question:
I am a forgetful man. Suppose I, in my routine, forget to take my children someplace before work, and I whistle off to my classroom, July 5th, leaving them all in the car. When I come back to the parking lot, there are three dead children. Am I at fault? What do you think, but more important why do you think it?
Edited by Epignosis - September 07 2012 at 21:45
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:49 |
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
You have misconstrued my position. I wholeheartedly believe you have freewill, but I am a compatibalist, meaning that freewill is not random. You choose to have another beer (or not) because of causes that press upon your mind. This choice is not an illusion. It is caused, however. Your choices are therefore new causes on future choices. Isn't that cool?
As for the justice system, and recognizing the thread we are in, I will answer the way I wish to: The Bible says we are born sinners. That is, we are wired to f**k up.
Question:
I am a forgetful man. Suppose I, in my routine, forget to take my children someplace before work, and I whistle off to my classroom, July 5th, leaving them all in the car. When I come back to the parking lot, there are three dead children. Am I at fault? What do you think, but more important why do you think it?
|
I guess I am confused about your position then. If your choices are caused entirely by things that came before them, how are they really choices? I suspect we agree more than we realize but are having trouble making ourselves undertsood. As for your question, I do think you are at fault. Knowing that you are a forgetful man, it is your duty to find ways to overcome this fault when it could be harmful o others. This is partially why I have a problem with people who want to label any fault a "disorder" so as not to have to accept responsibility for attempting to overcome it. Then again, I have never been terribly persuaded by the insanity defense to begin with, so perhaps I am not the best person to ask.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:55 |
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
You have misconstrued my position. I wholeheartedly believe you have freewill, but I am a compatibalist, meaning that freewill is not random. You choose to have another beer (or not) because of causes that press upon your mind. This choice is not an illusion. It is caused, however. Your choices are therefore new causes on future choices. Isn't that cool?
As for the justice system, and recognizing the thread we are in, I will answer the way I wish to: The Bible says we are born sinners. That is, we are wired to f**k up.
Question:
I am a forgetful man. Suppose I, in my routine, forget to take my children someplace before work, and I whistle off to my classroom, July 5th, leaving them all in the car. When I come back to the parking lot, there are three dead children. Am I at fault? What do you think, but more important why do you think it?
|
I guess I am confused about your position then. If your choices are caused entirely by things that came before them, how are they really choices? I suspect we agree more than we realize but are having trouble making ourselves undertsood.
As for your question, I do think you are at fault. Knowing that you are a forgetful man, it is your duty to find ways to overcome this fault when it could be harmful o others. This is partially why I have a problem with people who want to label any fault a "disorder" so as not to have to accept responsibility for attempting to overcome it.
Then again, I have never been terribly persuaded by the insanity defense to begin with, so perhaps I am not the best person to ask.
|
I agree with you that I would be at fault. Assume for a moment that I never considered myself a forgetful person (that comment was third person sh*t), and still the courts will rule three counts of negligent homicide.
Did I mean to kill my children? No. Nor does a drunk mean to kill someone else while he's having his way down the road. Nor does a man prone to anger really want to kill his entire family in a fit of rage.
So on and so forth.
Our brains are us. Take our legs, arms, and whatever, but we are our brains. Sometimes our brains cause harm to other brains and their appendages.
I'll take an unpopular stance here and say that "insanity" is no defense for a crime.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 22:02 |
|
^Well we agree there.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 22:05 |
What is below is not related to our discussion Logan, but I felt compelled to share it here:
I want to share something that happened today.
I had an experience today as I went to get my lunch. I turned a corner
and there was a girl with some light smoke wafting about her head. She
gave me an odd look with her hand behind her back. I asked her why she
was smoking. She told me I could go ahead and write her up, that she
didn't care. I looked at her and said, "I don't want to write you up. I
want you to tell me why you're smoking on campus." She looked
distressed and told me how she found out her mother has cancer and they
can't operate on her. I asked her to put out her cigarette and I walked
with her to her class. After she told me more, I asked her what her
mother's name was. I told her I would say a
prayer for her mother. The girl looked me in the eye, surprised, and
said "Thank you."
Then I came back to my classroom to eat and look what I read:
Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up. 2 He said: “In a certain town there was a judge who neither feared God nor cared what people thought. 3 And there was a widow in that town who kept coming to him with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary.’
4 “For some time he
refused. But finally he said to himself, ‘Even though I don’t fear God or care what people think, 5 yet because this widow keeps bothering me, I will see that she gets justice, so that she won’t eventually come and attack me!’”
6 And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7 And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? 8 I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
I
honestly have given up. But what a thing to read after promising a girl that I
would pray for her mother who is sick with cancer! So I am going to be
bold when I pray for Sylvia's mom. I hope God heals her. And I hope,
too, that a little mercy will go along way.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 22:11 |
|
Believers in Christ, will you pray for Sylvia's mother Jennifer?
I will.
|
|
|
|
AEProgman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2012
Location: Toadstool
Status: Offline
Points: 1797
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 23:16 |
I cannot pass up an opportunity to pray for someone suffering, regardless of what the outcome/answer is. I have just offered up prayers for Jennifer's knowledge of the Truth and health restoration as well as Sylvia's peace through this ordeal.
Looked at the origin of this thread and a few points in between, it seems to have strayed from its original intent but has stirred all kinds of thought proviking discussions, which is not a bad thing.
AEProgman
|
|
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17565
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 23:17 |
|
I will say a prayer Rob for the Mom and the girl.
I'm not sure what you meant though by the first sentence of last paragraph "I have given up."
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 08 2012 at 06:47 |
Finnforest wrote:
I will say a prayer Rob for the Mom and the girl.
I'm not sure what you meant though by the first sentence of last paragraph "I have given up."
|
For a while, I had given up on prayer. There was a lingering bitterness in my heart that I am overcoming.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 08 2012 at 07:09 |
Explain to me exactly why professing Christians love to pray in public? New International Version (©1984)But
when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your
Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in
secret, will reward you. New Living Translation (©2007)
But
when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray
to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will
reward you. English Standard Version (©2001)
But
when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your
Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward
you. New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But
you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray
to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done
in secret will reward you. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which
seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. International Standard Version (©2008)
But
whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your
Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees from the hidden place
will reward you. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But
you, when you pray, enter into your closet and lock your door, and pray
to your father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret
will reward you in public. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When
you pray, go to your room and close the door. Pray privately to your
Father who is with you. Your Father sees what you do in private. He will
reward you. King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But
you, when you pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut your
door, pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in
secret shall reward you openly. American King James Version
But
you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your
door, pray to your Father which is in secret; and your Father which
sees in secret shall reward you openly. American Standard Version
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having
shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who
seeth in secret shall recompense thee. Douay-Rheims Bible
But
thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the
door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret
will repay thee. Darby Bible Translation
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy chamber, and having shut thy
door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who sees in
secret will render it to thee. English Revised Version
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall recompense thee. Webster's Bible Translation
But
thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut
thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth
in secret, will reward thee openly. Weymouth New Testament
But
you, whenever you pray, go into your own room and shut the door: then
pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father--He who sees in
secret--will recompense you. World English Bible
But
you, when you pray, enter into your inner room, and having shut your
door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in
secret will reward you openly. Young's Literal Translation
But thou, when thou mayest pray, go into thy chamber, and having shut
thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who is
seeing in secret, shall reward thee manifestly.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 08 2012 at 07:09
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Christian Thread
