Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

BibleBeliever5

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BibleBeliever5

  1. A KJV update should definitely use the same Scripture texts as the KJV, the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.
  2. I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.
  3. Let's skip to the bigger question. Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today? With God, all things are possible.
  4. Let me put it this way. I do not support any inaccuracy in the Bible. I believe that a Bible should be 100% accurate. I do not support updating anything in the KJV that makes the text inaccurate. If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you. Please think more about that.
  5. The 21st Century KJV (KJ21) is inadequate. It still keeps archaic English like thee, thou, ye, and cometh, as well as archaic grammar. So the "eth" endings are unnecessarily kept. Also, it has very strange formatting different than the KJV with larger italic font for words of Christ and then removing the important italics of the KJV. This is unacceptable. It also uses bold lettering for famous passages. So some verses are completely bolded. One quote from the Father was put in all caps and italics. It also capitalizes divine pronouns, which means they have to interpret which pronouns are referring to God, and they could have made mistakes. I think the KJV is much better by not doing that. So the KJ21 does not fulfill the need for a KJV update. It introduces poor changes to the KJV. The Third Millennium Bible, which is also called the New Authorized Version, is the same as the KJ21 but includes Apocrypha and no formatting changes.
  6. Not true. [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.
  7. Hi Pastor, I think I have already indicated that I am ready to finish this conversation with you that is somewhat off topic from the original post. I am busy. Even if I explain more than I already have, I think it is very unlikely that you would accept it. I know God can reveal to you the correct meaning in time to come. Are you able to let this go? Stay safe and healthy.
  8. Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15. I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses. I don't think we need to argue. We actually have lots of common ground. I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says. I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.
  9. I think you are misunderstanding Scripture and not using good logic. Have a blessed week!
  10. Thank you for your time Pastor. I think I have already made my interpretation clear. There's no need to keep saying the same thing. May God be glorified. Have a blessed day!
  11. That is not what I have stated. I have already said the context of verse 10 and 11 show the generality of "things." Of course context matters. But in this case, it is not a constraining context as you claim.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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) 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?
  16. 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.
  17. [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. Do you think these verses mean non-believers can not read and learn about Jesus in the Bible? That's not what it means.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.
×
×
  • Create New...