Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Members
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 comment
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 comment
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.



×
×
  • Create New...