Jump to content
Online Baptist

Pastor Scott Markle

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    2,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    190

Pastor Scott Markle last won the day on February 12

Pastor Scott Markle had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About Pastor Scott Markle

  • Rank
    Abiding in Christ
  • Birthday 08/13/1971

Profile Information

Recent Profile Visitors

15,988 profile views
  1. For those who are willing to consider Greek grammar in their study of the Scriptures, in the Greek the words "that which" from the phrase, "that which is perfect," of 1 Corinthians 13:10 translates a neuter pronoun. Whereas, if the phrase was a reference unto the coming of Jesus Christ, the perfect One, we would expect the phrase to be a masculine pronoun, such that it would read, "He which is perfect," rather than "that which is perfect." Concerning the terminology in the opening portion of 1 Corinthians 13:12, the word "darkly" is translated from the Greek prepositional phrase, "en ain
  2. No, we do not use "thee" and "thou" in common communication today, which is the reason that I acknowledged those pronouns as "archaic" elements of the language. However . . . Actually, I would contend that we are NOT able to convey the distinction between singular and plural with as much precise accuracy in the common usage of today simply through the pronoun "you" (sing.) and "you" (pl.). In fact, this is part of the reason why in various areas of the country we find phrases like - "you all," "yous," "yous guys," etc. All of those phrases serve as an attempt (although not grammatic
  3. So, as another has already asked earlier - How would you propose to retain that information if you chose not to use the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?
  4. 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 PERSONAL PRONOUNS in English 1st person personal pronouns are those referring to one's self. 2nd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken to directly. 3rd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken about indirectly. Personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy, EXCEPT in the case of the 2n
  5. By the way, if a word is a more "archaic" English word, but is still retained in a modern English dictionary, then that word is STILL a part of the language that we use today, even it is only on a rare (or specialized) occasion. That word (whatever word it may be) has NOT yet been lost from the language altogether.
  6. And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating. You have again revealed your priorities. By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy. (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught is NOT an argument against this provision.)
  7. Here is the problem in our discussion concerning the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" -- I cannot discuss their importance for precise accuracy with you if you do not actually know what they mean grammatically. For that reason, I asked you above to provide your own understanding concerning their grammatical significance/meaning. You have not done so. Even so, you have proceeded to express disagreement; but you have NOT provided any evidence to support your disagreement. Let me ask you again -- What do you understand the grammatical significance/meaning of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and
  8. Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY. So, you have now revealed what many have suspected. Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY. I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error. I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."
  9. Brother "BibleBeliever," Do you understand the grammatical significance of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"? If so, what do you understand that grammatical significance to be? In your opening question for this thread discussion, you ask about "a simple, ACCURATE KJV update." Understanding the grammatical significance for the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye," I would contend that they are included in the King James translation for precise accuracy. Furthermore, I would contend that arguing for them to be removed is demonstrating an interest in "simplicity" AT THE EXPENSE of a
  10. Hey, Brother Dave, I was starting to wonder what happened to you here on Online Baptist. Good to "see" your "smiling face." Praying for your daughter.
  11. IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known. IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done. However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available
  12. For clarity I must contend -- "Legalism" is dealing with salvation AND sanctification, not standards. I know a number of pastors and preachers who argue that "legalism" is a Biblical matter that concerns ONLY the issue of salvation. With this I must strongly disagree. The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was dealing with the matter of Biblical "legalism" throughout the entire epistle to the Galatians; and his primary focus was not the issue of salvation, but was the issue of sanctification (as per Galatians 3:1-3).
  13. Brother "BibleBeliever," Here is wherein I can have agreement with you -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, IS for the unbeliever. (Note: This does NOT mean that I believe the entirety of the teaching in God's Holy Word is for the unbeliever, as per my previous discussion with you.)
  14. Indeed, I believe that "legalism" IS a Biblical concept, and a "bad" one at that. I believe that the Biblical concept concerns a reliance upon the law (a keeping of a set of commandments, whether God-made or man-made) as the foundational power either for salvation or for sanctification. I believe that the apostle Paul handled the matter of "legalism" concerning salvation throughout the epistle to the Romans and that he handled the matter of "legalism" concerning sanctification throughout the epistle to the Galatians. (The matter of Biblical "legalism" is also handled at various other places
  15. That is actually an interesting topic. "Legalism" is a word that is used among us (usually to the negative) with a certain amount of regularity. Yet the definition for the term "legalism" seems a bit nebulous, being viewed differently depending on the different users. What then IS the definition of "legalism"? It is not strictly a Biblical word, but a word that has been coined in order to describe a Biblical idea. What then do we mean when we use the term? (Note: I DO have my own established definition for the term "legalism" when I use it, but I recognize that others may have a differen
×
×
  • Create New...