1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Acts 8:7 correct interpretation

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Briguy, Jul 2, 2004.

?

Does the word "many" represent that many, but not all of the people got healed?

  1. YES

    16 vote(s)
    94.1%

  2. NO

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%

  3. NOT SURE

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Top Posters
  1. Briguy

    Briguy <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Acts 8 - KJV
    [6] And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
    [7] For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.
    [8] And there was great joy in that city.

    Acts 8 - YLT
    6 the multitudes also were giving heed to the things spoken by Philip, with one accord, in their hearing and seeing the signs that he was doing,
    7 for unclean spirits came forth from many who were possessed, crying with a loud voice, and many who have been paralytic and lame were healed,
    8 and there was great joy in that city.

    Two translations for verse 7 are above and seem to say the same thing. In this poll the question of what does the word "many" in verse 7 really mean, is being looked at..
     
    #1 Briguy, Jul 2, 2004
  2. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Poll results not much of a surprise! :D

    If they had meant "ALL" they would have written "ALL"...

    There is a Greek for "ALL" and it isn't the same word used for "Many"

    Acts 10:38 uses "All"
     
    #2 SpiritualMadMan, Jul 2, 2004
  3. MEE

    MEE <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have to agree with SMM. When the apostles went about laying hands on the sick, they weren't alway healed, but in Acts 10:38 when Jesus was doing the healings; how could it not happen?

    After all...He's God! :D

    MEE [​IMG]
     
    #3 MEE, Jul 2, 2004
  4. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,459
    Likes Received:
    3,563
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I agree, but I may have misunderstood the poll.

    Does the word "many" just show that many present had this or that disease/issue?

    I don't think it does. I think the word "many" represents that many, but not all of the people got healed. I understand healing to be for the gloirification of God,and that may not have been the case if all were healed.

    With my understanding, I couldn't say yes to both statements, but then again, I've been up chasing my 14 mo. old son around the house for the past few hours, and my brain may not be working properly.
     
    #4 JonC, Jul 4, 2004
  5. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    So far, the results look promising. It seems that most think it means many, not all!! [​IMG] [​IMG]

    But hopefully people will keep on voting.

    Peace.
    Tam
     
    #5 tamborine lady, Jul 5, 2004
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    "Many" people in contact with the Apostle were ill or sick or possessed -- but not "all" of the people were sick or ill or possessed.

    Those "many" were healed.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #6 BobRyan, Jul 5, 2004
  7. tamborine lady

    tamborine lady Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    0
    ;type:

    Many is not all, many were healed, but not all were healed.

    Peace
     
    #7 tamborine lady, Jul 5, 2004
  8. Briguy

    Briguy <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, My side won the poll but it was closer then I thought it would be. Another question to ask is would there be great joy in the city if only a certain number of people were healed. Wouldn't those who came but were not healed still be miserable, as well as their families? If 500 were healed say, that could leave maybe 75 to a 100 not healed based on the use of the word many, meaning not all. I just don't think that fits the messgae and the context here.
    Bob made a good point. His explanation is basically mine and just fits better within this context and scripture as a whole. To those that voted yes to number 1 please re-read the verse and really think it through, you may find that now you would vote yes for number 2. I did notice that several people must have voted yes for both which seems to defy logic but it probably shows I should have had just one question. Oh well, it was my first poll.
    Thanks to all who responded. Again, I WON (just being silly)

    In Christ, who won the real battle,
    Brian
     
    #8 Briguy, Jul 13, 2004
  9. Gup20

    Gup20 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    22
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The word used for 'many' is the greek word "polus" which usually means a 'large number' representing an unspecific count of things, and not a unique group.

    It is clear from looking the word up in strong's concordances that the word is most often used to describe a large but uncertain quantity, not a specific or limited group. The verses simply don't touch on whether all who were there that were sick were healed... it simply says that [uncertain, but large number] people were healed. Because no absolute numbers are used (the word ALL would be an absolute, as would the number 50, for example) we must understand the size of the group by the generalization of 'many'. Which is to say the healings were widespred.

    For example, if we look at Acts 2 we see again the people were in one accord... but this time it says ALL were in one accord, and ALL recived the holy spirit.

    Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
    Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
    Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
    Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

    So then, in the light of this... we see that the Author if Acts certinly knows the difference between ALL and MANY. What I think is tremendously important is the direct correlation between ONE ACCORD and the move of God. In Acts 2, it says all were in one accord, and all were filled with the Holy Ghost and spoke in other tongues. In Acts 8 it says that many gave heed and were in one accord and then many were healed.

    Therefore, I would say that the work of God in both scriptures is directly proportional (related or resulting from) to the condition of 'one accord'. It has more to do with the position of 'one accord' then with how many specifically were 'there'.

    Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
    Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    Perhaps Luke (the author of Acts) knew full well these words (from Matt 18) and by saying 'many' or 'all' simply needed to establish a sufficient number were in one accord to satisfy the conditions Jesus set concerning two or three being gathered together. 'Many' or 'All' then would place the emphasis not on the actual number, but to what level of agreement in which they stood. Perhaps that is the focus here, rather than the actual number.
     
    #9 Gup20, Jul 14, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...