Jump to content
Online Baptist

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      2


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save

In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum. The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update? The poll title insinuates that the KJV is

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."   Concerning PER

  • Lady Administrators
12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

I don't think so, either - although that is where things head when one decides to "make it more understandable.' If it ain't broke (and it ain't) don't "fix" it. 🙅‍♀️

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

16 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
14 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
26 minutes ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

I'm actually amazed you think that.  You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners?  You don't use the Bible when you go witnessing?  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the Bible.  Wouldn't you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners? 

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
29 minutes ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In verse 14, it does not say the "non-believer."  The Scripture specifically says the "natural man."  These are the secularists who reject everything spiritual.  But there are some non-believers who are spiritual and believe in spiritual things.  If you interpret the natural man to mean all non-believers, then how would a non-believer ever receive the gospel and convert?  Non-believers do receive the things of the Spirit of God when they hear the good news and believe.  No, the "natural man" in that text does not mean all non-believers.

The Bible was written for non-believers.  God speaks to non-believers and believers through it.  We should want them to have it in a language they can understand without putting in all the effort to learn archaic English.  And non-believers can certainly read and understand parts of the Bible on their own.  Some things are very obvious in the Bible.  Many non-believers do in fact read the Bible and understand some things on their own.  I heard of a non-believer who studied the Bible 10 years and then became a believer.  First you said it was not written for non-believers.  Now you say it was not written for non-believers to read and understand on their own.  So you're saying a non-believer can only read and understand it when someone explains it to them?  Only then they can receive the things of God?  But where do you get that?  How is that different than when they read it on their own.  I think your position is lost and very unhelpful for the lost.  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the text of Scripture.  God can speak directly to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators
3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

Well, I guess the medical world doesn't realize that. Imagine that...an archaic word being used in modern times. Unprecedented. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
54 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

So you're saying a non-believer can only read and understand it when someone explains it to them?  Only then they can receive the things of God?  But where do you get that?

Its a basic bible concept. God committed the oracles* first to the church in the wilderness and then to us, his NT church with the commission to preach and teach it. The believer has the Spirit of Christ within them which convicts the lost through preaching. The lost cannot believe without the Chrisitian preaching it to them.

*4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures. ~Webster's 1828

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Titus 1:3 but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 4:10-11 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 

Acts 8:30-37 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 11:12-16 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself,

So do you want to update the bible for unbelievers to be able to understand it on their own? I don't think such a thing is truly possible. They need a Spirit filled preacher to speak the Words of Life.  I would rather have a written bible that equips the believer, so that the believer can do what they were commissioned to do. 

John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

In verse 14, it does not say the "non-believer."  The Scripture specifically says the "natural man."  These are the secularists who reject everything spiritual.  But there are some non-believers who are spiritual and believe in spiritual things.  If you interpret the natural man to mean all non-believers, then how would a non-believer ever receive the gospel and convert?  Non-believers do receive the things of the Spirit of God when they hear the good news and believe.  No, the "natural man" in that text does not mean all non-believers.

Sorry; but in relation to the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the "natural man" of verse 14 is indeed the "non-believer" (that is -- the lost individual who is "unspiritual" because he or she is yet spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins").  As far as your argument that such would prevent the lost from understanding the gospel, the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2 divides the gospel message from the "wisdom of God."  In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 the apostle spoke concerning his proclamation of the gospel (which the lost individual can understand through the drawing/convicting work of God).  In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 the apostle spoke concerning the broader "wisdom of God" (which the lost individual cannot grasp on the spiritual level because such requires spiritual discernment and he or she is yet spiritually dead).

 

1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

I myself am also compelled to contend that this is a poor example of "archaic" English.  The only "archaic" elements in this verse would be the "st" ending on "treasurest" and possibly (and I would say, only slightly possibly) the word "impenitent."  So, what could be used instead of the word "impenitent"?  Maybe the best synonym would be the word "unrepentant."  However, the word "unrepentant" would be just as uncommon in societal language as the word "impenitent."  Yet the concept/doctrine of repentance (or the lack thereof) carries significant Biblical importance, and must not be discarded.  Here is a case wherein I would definitely contend that the reader needs to LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

That’s not what the Gospel of John says 

John 20:30-31 KJV
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

That’s not what the Gospel of John says

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

John 1:6-7 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

The Book of John was written to explain the Spiritual aspects of the gospel to the believer and in the first chapter it explains a witness from God was needed for the lost to comprehend. Before one can believe the scriptures they must first repent unto God and the Book of John does not deal with repentance directly but rather the process of believing. 

That is not to say the scripters cannot be used in the process of witnessing but that God uses believers, preaching through the Spirit, to propagate it and that the lost cannot receive its spiritual meaning alone. Without the proclamation of the Spirit filled believer the lost have no draw to salvation.

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 hours ago, John Young said:

Its a basic bible concept. God committed the oracles* first to the church in the wilderness and then to us, his NT church with the commission to preach and teach it. The believer has the Spirit of Christ within them which convicts the lost through preaching. The lost cannot believe without the Chrisitian preaching it to them.

*4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures. ~Webster's 1828

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Titus 1:3 but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 4:10-11 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 

Acts 8:30-37 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 11:12-16 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

You're mistaken and not using good logic, nor good application of Scripture.  None of that proves that non-believers require a Christian to understand Scripture.  And none of that means we should not have Scripture in language that can be understood by non-believers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sorry; but in relation to the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the "natural man" of verse 14 is indeed the "non-believer" (that is -- the lost individual who is "unspiritual" because he or she is yet spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins").  As far as your argument that such would prevent the lost from understanding the gospel, the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2 divides the gospel message from the "wisdom of God."  In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 the apostle spoke concerning his proclamation of the gospel (which the lost individual can understand through the drawing/convicting work of God).  In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 the apostle spoke concerning the broader "wisdom of God" (which the lost individual cannot grasp on the spiritual level because such requires spiritual discernment and he or she is yet spiritually dead).

 

I myself am also compelled to contend that this is a poor example of "archaic" English.  The only "archaic" elements in this verse would be the "st" ending on "treasurest" and possibly (and I would say, only slightly possibly) the word "impenitent."  So, what could be used instead of the word "impenitent"?  Maybe the best synonym would be the word "unrepentant."  However, the word "unrepentant" would be just as uncommon in societal language as the word "impenitent."  Yet the concept/doctrine of repentance (or the lack thereof) carries significant Biblical importance, and must not be discarded.  Here is a case wherein I would definitely contend that the reader needs to LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

My main point with verse 14 is that it does not mean all non-believers can never receive the things of the Spirit of God and therefore do not need the Bible in language they can understand.  The gospel is included here as a thing of the Spirit of God (see the context of verse 11).  Of course, non-believers receive the things of God's Spirit when they seek the Lord and believe.  I have heard multiple stories of non-believers personally studying the Bible and through that converting.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

In terms of Romans 2:5, you probably are so used to KJV English that you missed one of the major archaic elements of the verse (thy and thyself).  Another archaic element you missed was "unto."  The dictionary classes both of these elements as archaic.  Nobody in America talks like verse 5 today and the verse would just come across plain odd and not clearly understood by some people, especially to hear it orally.  If they did have someone explain the archaic elements to them, it would take extra unnecessary mental processing for them to try to comprehend the verse.  All of that extra work (explanation and struggling to understand) is simply unnecessary when the same meaning could be communicated in modern English.  The verse is clearly written in archaic English.

 

2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Romans 10:14 (KJV) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Do you think these verses mean non-believers can not read and learn about Jesus in the Bible?  That's not what it means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

None of that proves that non-believers require a Christian to understand Scripture. 

Okay then....Do you believe they can understand the Spiritual aspects of scripture without the Spirit of Christ?

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
22 minutes ago, John Young said:

Okay then....Do you believe they can understand the Spiritual aspects of scripture without the Spirit of Christ?

I don't want to get too much off topic.  It seems like it would be an endless debate with you.  The point is that it is valuable for non-Christians to have the Scriptures in their own modern language that they know and understand.  

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 minute ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

It seems like it would be an endless debate with you

It not endless debate. Rather it points to the disconnect with our translation philosophies, as to the primary purpose for the scripters we use.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

My main point with verse 14 is that it does not mean all non-believers can never receive the things of the Spirit of God and therefore do not need the Bible in language they can understand.  The gospel is included here as a thing of the Spirit of God (see the context of verse 11).  Of course, non-believers receive the things of God's Spirit when they seek the Lord and believe.  I have heard multiple stories of non-believers personally studying the Bible and through that converting. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

In terms of Romans 2:5, you probably are so used to KJV English that you missed one of the major archaic elements of the verse (thy and thyself).  Another archaic element you missed was "unto."  The dictionary classes both of these elements as archaic.  Nobody in America talks like verse 5 today and the verse would just come across plain odd and not clearly understood by some people, especially to hear it orally.  If they did have someone explain the archaic elements to them, it would take extra unnecessary mental processing for them to try to comprehend the verse.  All of that extra work (explanation and struggling to understand) is simply unnecessary when the same meaning could be communicated in modern English.  The verse is clearly written in archaic English.

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun preposition "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

Thank you Pastor for your thoughts.  However, I think you are incorrectly limiting the meaning of "the things of the Spirit of God" in v.14 based on a mistaken application of context.  The phrase itself is very broad on its face.  Verse 14 doesn't say these things or "which things" (like in v.13).  Verse 14 simply says "the things."  Verses 6-8 do connect this wisdom of God with the gospel (Christ crucified in v.8).  And in Chapter 1:23-24 the Scriptures connect the gospel with Christ and the wisdom of God.  According to the context in verse 10 and 11, the meaning of the "things of God" is very general and not limited as you say.

[1Co 2:10-11 KJV] 10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Notice in verse 10, "all things, yea, the deep things of God."  Verse 14 is not constrained by some of the previous concepts.  He has been talking about a variety of "things of God" before verse 14.  So I interpret verse 14 as again being very general, including the gospel.  And even your interpretation does not fit in verse 14.  So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers?  They can and do receive these things as they seek God, hear about these things, and then become believers.  Verse 14 is talking about natural men as non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual.  

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828.

unto

UN'TO, prep. a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.  (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

 

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

By the way Pastor, do you not think it would be valuable for non-Christians (and Christians) to have the Scriptures in their own modern language that they know and understand?

Edited by BibleBeliever5
More information
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

You are correct that the word "unto" is NOT a pronoun.  Rather, it is a PREPOSITION.  If you notice in my comment above, I referred to it as a "preposition" first; however, in the second line I presented a type error in calling it a "pronoun."  That was not my error of understanding, but of typing faster than I was thinking.  I do apologize for that error on my part. I have now corrected my typing error in the posting above (but have allowed the word "pronoun" to remain with a strike through, in order to maintain the evidence of your correction).

 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828.

unto

UN'TO, prep. a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.  (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

It appears that you have some substantial evidence for your claim that the preposition "unto" is "archaic."  I was simply responding based upon my personal experience.  Having received a more "classical" high school education in the 1980s, I was taught to understand "unto" as a preposition along with a whole list of other prepositions.  In my personal experience of reading, I have found "unto" to be a natural preposition without any confusion whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Thank you Pastor for your thoughts.  However, I think you are incorrectly limiting the meaning of "the things of the Spirit of God" in v.14 based on a mistaken application of context.  The phrase itself is very broad on its face.  Verse 14 doesn't say these things or "which things" (like in v.13).  Verse 14 simply says "the things."  Verses 6-8 do connect this wisdom of God with the gospel (Christ crucified in v.8).  And in Chapter 1:23-24 the Scriptures connect the gospel with Christ and the wisdom of God.  According to the context in verse 10 and 11, the meaning of the "things of God" is very general and not limited as you say.

Brother "BibleBeliever," 

With all due respect it is doubtful that either of us will change the other's mind on this matter.  However, for the sake of the audience, I shall present my case more thoroughly, as follows:

1 Corinthians 2:1 ends with the phrase, "Declaring unto you the testimony of God."  I have and am contending that "the testimony of God" is that about which the apostle Paul spoke throughout verses 1-5, but that he spoke about something different throughout verses 6-16.  Let us consider --

I.  The "testimony of God" declared to the Corinthians (vs. 1-5)

     A.  Declared when the apostle first came unto the Corinthians (v. 1)
     B.  Declared without "excellency of speech or of wisdom" (v. 1)
     C.  Declared as no other message than "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (the gospel) (v. 2)
     D.  Declared with an approach "in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling" (v. 3)
     E.  Declared without "enticing words of man's wisdom" (v. 4)
     F.  Declared "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (v. 4)
     G.  Declared this way in order that saving faith "should not stand in the wisdom of men" (v. 5)
     H.  Declared this way in order that saving faith should stand "in the power of God" (v. 5)

(Note: This passage helps us to understand the manner in which we should approach the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ, not at all in the manner of men's wisdom, but totally through the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.)

Then the apostle began 1 Corinthians 2:6 with the conjunctive adverb "howbeit," an adverb (and conjunction) of contrast meaning "however it may be, nevertheless."  Thus in verse 6 the apostle began to speak concerning something different and in contrast to that about which he spoke in verses 1-5.  In the opening line of verse 6, the apostle specified this new subject, saying, "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect;" and in the opening line of verse 7, he specified this new subject, saying, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery."

II.  The "wisdom of God" spoken "among them that are perfect" (vs. 6-ff)

     A.  Spoken "among them that are perfect" (v. 6)
     B.  Specifically NOT "the wisdom of this world" or "of the princes of this world" (which is worthless) (v. 6)
     C.  Defined as "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" (v. 7)
     D.  Ordained by God "before the world unto our [believer's] glory" (v. 7)
     E.  Specifically NOT known by ANY of the princes of this world (v. 8 )

(Note: The closing half of verse 8 is NOT about the gospel message itself, but is about the evidence of the world's ignorance concerning the wisdom of God, as evidenced by their act of crucifying "the Lord of glory.")

     F.  Specifically NOT a wisdom that has "entered into the heart of man" (v. 9)
     G.  Defined, in contrast, as "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (for believer's) (v. 9)
     H.  Defined as that which "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believer's] by his Spirit" (v. 10)
     I.   Defined as "the deep things of God" which only the Spirit of God searches out (vs. 10-11)
     J.  Specifically NOT learned through "the spirit of the world" (v. 12)
     K.  Specifically learned through the Spirit that we believers have received, "the spirit which is of God" (v. 12)
     L.  Specifically intended for us believers to know through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 12)
     M.  Defined as "the things that are freely given" to us believers "of God" (v. 12)
     N.  Defined as the things that the apostle did NOT teach "in the words which man's wisdom teacheth" (v. 13)
     O.  Defined as the things that the apostle taught in the words "which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (v. 13)

(Note: Throughout verses 6-13 we have now encountered three significant contrasts.  First, we have encountered the contrast between the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of God.  Second, we have encountered the contrast between the lack of understanding in this wisdom of God by the lost world and the specific preparation of this wisdom by God for believers.  Third, we have encountered the contrast between "the spirit of the world," which cannot aid us in learning this wisdom of God, and "the spirit which is of God," which we as believers have received specifically that we my "know the things that are freely given to us of God.")  

Now, all of the above establishes the contextual flow of thought for the declaration of verse 14 -- "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 

Throughout verses 6-14 the wisdom that is spoken "among them that are perfect" from verse 6 is the same as "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" from verse 7, the same as "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9, the same as "the deep things of God" from verse 10, the same as "the things that are freely given unto us [believers] of God" from verse 12, the same as the things which the apostle spoke in the words "which the Holy Ghost speaketh" from verse 13, and the same as "the things of the Spirit of God" from verse 14.  Furthermore, throughout verses 6-14 the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in union with "the wisdom of this world" from verse 6, "the princes of this world" from verses 6 & 8, the ones in whose heart God's wisdom has not entered from verse 9, "the spirit of the world" from verse 12, and "the words which man's wisdom teacheth" from verse 13.   Finally, throughout verses 6-14 the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in direct contrast to "them that are perfect" from verse 6, to them that love God from verse 9, to the "us" unto whom God has revealed His wisdom by His Spirit from verse 10, and to the "we" who have received "the spirit which is of God" specifically "that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God" from verse 12.  In addition, the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in direct contrast to the one "that is spiritual" from verse 15 and to the "we" who "have the mind of Christ" from verse 16.  Even so, we are able to conclude that "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" that is referenced throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 is specifically for believers, and not for the unbelieving world.  Furthermore, we are able to conclude that the "natural man" from verse 14 is a descriptive for the unbelievers of this world.  They do not receive this "wisdom of God" because they find it to be foolishness, and they are not even able to know this "wisdom of God" because it requires spiritual discernment through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that they have not yet received.  (Note: Defining the "natural man" from verse 14 as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual" finds NO support within the context of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.)  

From my perspective, attempting to separate the truth of 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the whole context of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 simply detracts from one's credibility as a Bible student, and thus also from one's credibility to propose changes to the Bible translation.  Although I myself have not and do not take a "strict traditionalist" viewpoint on the matter of "updating," I would not trust any to engage in "updating" whom I do not even find trustworthy in grammatical and contextual Bible study.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

And even your interpretation does not fit in verse 14.  So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers? 

I believe that I have answered this question in my above posting as follows:

5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, we are able to conclude that the "natural man" from verse 14 is a descriptive for the unbelievers of this world.  They do not receive this "wisdom of God" because they find it to be foolishness, and they are not even able to know this "wisdom of God" because it requires spiritual discernment through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that they have not yet received. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The American Heritage Dictionary, fifth Edition, Copyright 2012, is a dictionary that is in common use in in our age. The definition for 'unto' is: prep. To [ME]."

The American Heritage Dictionary does not, repeat, does not, list the word "unto" as archaic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Alan said:

The American Heritage Dictionary does not, repeat, does not, list the word "unto" as archaic.

And that's the issue with updating based on archaism. Words and grammar fall in and out of common use. The fact that the King James has been the common bible for over 400 years and has been attributed  to being one of the major influence in stabilizing English, means that even if a section of the population feels that portions are out of date, that is only their subjective opinion.

Because of its common status and continued influance and role in English psych, everything contained in it, other than spelling changed from 1611, is not archaic. Rather, as part of popular english christian litature (and the most sold and read bible version) is very much in common use (more than Shakespeare, and on par with news papers and magazines) even if one section of the population is not familiar with it's various aspects and unique traits.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
22 minutes ago, John Young said:

And that's the issue with updating based on archaism. Words and grammar fall in and out of common use. The fact that the King James has been the common bible for over 400 years and has been attributed  to being one of the major influence in stabilizing English, means that even if a section of the population feels that portions are out of date, that is only their subjective opinion.

 

Every word that John Young stated is correct.

The main issue of this thread is "only their subjective opinion" of those who want to find fault with the Authorized Version; in this case the 1769 edition, in order to justify the translating of a new version.

Therefore, as I stated in my first post, the reason why I would not not vote in this poll is that I feel this poll is an incorrect poll.

The Authorized Version, in this case the 1769 edition, is already simple for the average user, can be understandable using a common dictionary if the person has a problem with a word, the context of the word usually gives its meaning, and is accurate and faithful to the most trustworthy manuscripts.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to have another translation of the Authorized Version, commonly called the KJV of 1611, of the Bible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
13 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

With all due respect it is doubtful that either of us will change the other's mind on this matter. 

Hi Pastor, I think we both agree that the natural man means non-believers.  And we both agree that these natural men are not spiritual people.  We just have a different understanding of which non-believers.  May God be glorified.  Thanks for the discussion.  I wish you the best.  This has gotten way off topic.  🙂  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
14 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

"the things of the Spirit of God" from verse 14. 

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
19 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers?  They can and do receive these things as they seek God, hear about these things, and then become believers.

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
 

Those verses do not mean all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God.  Of course some non-believers become believers and receive the wisdom of God.  In fact, the gospel is the wisdom of God in Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

I believe that with the above comment we find the foundational reason for our disagreement.  It appears that we each have a significantly different viewpoint concerning the importance of context in Bible study.

_________________________________________

4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  

Again for the sake of the audience, concerning the usage of "things" throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, we find the following phrases --

1.  In verse 9, "The things which God hath prepared for them that love him."
2.  In verse 10, "For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
3.  In verse 11a, "The things of a man."
4.  In verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
5.  In verse 12, "That we may know the things that are freely given to us of God."
6.  In verse 13a, "Which things also we speak."
7.  In verse 13c, "Comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
8.  In verse 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God."
9.  In verse 15, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things."

Now, what has been proposed is that we should separate "the thing of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context.  Yet in verse 14 "the things" is modified by the phrase "of the Spirit of God."  So then we may ask -- Is the Spirit of God at all referenced in the preceding context?  Answer -- Yes, the Spirit of God IS so referenced starting in verse 10.  

1.  Verse 10, "But God hath revealed them [that is -- "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9] unto us [believers] by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."
2.  Verse 11b, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  
3.  Verse 12, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."
4.  Verse 13, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
5.  Verse 14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually [of the Spirit] discerned."
6.  Verse 15, "But he that is spiritual [of the Spirit] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

Even so, the above proposal not only requires us to separate "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context, but also requires us to separate the reference to "the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references throughout the preceding context.  Furthermore, it requires us to separate the two "spiritually/spiritual" references of verses 14 & 15 from the references to the Holy Spirit throughout the preceding context. 

So, what do we learn about the "work" of the Holy Spirit from this context?  We learn from verse 10 that the things which God has prepared for us believers, He has specifically revealed to us by his spirit.  Even so, those who do not yet have the Spirit of God would not yet have these things revealed to them.  We also learn from verse 10 that it is the Spirit of God who searches out "the deep things of God;" and we further learn from verse 11 that no man can search out these "things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Even so, we understand that apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it would be impossible for any of us to know "the things of God."  However, we learn from verse 12 that we believers have indeed received "the spirit which is of God," and that we have received Him to dwell within us specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Even so, we may understand that until an individual has received the indwelling Holy Spirit, that individual would NOT be able to know "the things of God."  In fact, that is precisely what verse 14 teaches -- The "natural man" is the one who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  Because he has not yet received the Spirit, he does not receive "the things of the Spirit of God."  Rather, he finds those things to be foolishness.  In fact, he cannot even know those things because those things require spiritual discernment; and having not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit, the "natural man" does not possess the spiritual discernment that the indwelling Holy Spirit would provide.  On the other hand, "he that is spiritual" (v. 15) is one who has received the indwelling Holy Spirit.  As such, he is able to judge all things, specifically because the Holy Spirit that dwells within him searches all things, even "the deep things of God."

Indeed, as we consider these things throughout the context, let us also take note of the three references to knowledge within the context.  In the closing portion of verse 11, we are told, "Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."  Then in verse 12 we are told, "Now we [believers] have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; [Why?] that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Finally, in verse 14 we are told, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Indeed, NO one has this knowledge on his or her own, but the Spirit of God ONLY.  Yet we believers have received the Spirit of God specifically so that we can have this knowledge.  However, the "natural man" [the unbeliever] cannot have this knowledge, specifically because he or she has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

______________________________________

However, the accusation will remain from the other side that I am too concerned about the context in my Bible study.  As for me -- Context, Context, Context (that is -- grammatical context, immediate context, Biblical context).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 48 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...