Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Goofs and booboos in the KJV.


DaveW
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Mr Roby is clearly only here to cause trouble, and he is making hollow claims about errors in the KJV. If he has as he has implied many errors in the KJV why is it that he has now been more than 24 hours since posting his next error?

If there are so many (as he implies) then it should be a simple matter to just list them off - shouldn't take any great amount of time to find the next one and present it - since he has spent 40 years ridiculing the KJV (note the use of "goofs and booboos" - which sounds very much like what he accused NoNics of in another thread) he should be an expert on such things.

Then again, if he really has investigated the matter, he would have thoroughly studied the matter of the Passover, which it is evident that he has not from his poor counter to the answer presented here on that point.

No, I doubt very much that he has any good intent - he is here to damage the faith of some, which is the result that comes when people are driven to the MV's by such as he - so many doctrines are softened or removed by the MV's, and the simple fact that many MV's promote doubt of God's Word ("not found in the better manuscripts") damages men's faith in the Word of God.

This is my assessment of this man - he has lied, he has misrepresented, he has ridiculed, he has stated that he will not give plain respect, and yet he DEMANDED respect from us.

Let me make this plain - I am NOT AFRAID of any so called "proofs" that he can post here, because I know that they can all be answered.

I am also confident that no matter how solid the proof against him, he will not accept it.

The matter of Easter/Passover has been answered - you refuse to accept what is presented, and we refuse to accept your mispresentation of Scripture.

Later readers can assess for themselves what has been presented on that matter and decide that Mr Roby is wrong for themselves.

It is time to move on to the second error of the implied many that there are...…..

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators
19 hours ago, Jerry said:

 

P.S. Hi Happy Christian. Good to “see” you again. 😉

Jerry! It's SO good to "see" you again as well! I hope you're here to stay for a while? I've thought about and prayed for you often. Are you still in the same place? If so, we aren't too far from your neck of the woods now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I moved to Abbotsford, BC (near Vancouver) in October 2011.

As for sticking around, we will see. I am not fighting depression like I was when I last visited, so I am willing to give these boards a try again. I look forward to fellowshipping over the Word of God and helping others dig into the Scriptures to answer issues we face here and in our own lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
30 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  A word about the "Goliath" controversy of 2 Samuel 12:19:

    "Goliath" is a HEBREW word which means "splendor". And "Lahmi" is also a Hebrew word meaning "my bread'.

   Scripture doesn't tell us the Philistine names of those 2 giants. Goliath & Lahmi are likely Hebrew "handles" for those 2 men. As both were abnormally large, it could be that the Israelis applied Goliath to the original G's brother, not knowing his actual name.

  Just a suggestion regarding the controversy of the Hebrew wording of that verse.

I believe you mean 2 Samuel 21:19, right?

If so, I ask -- What is the specific phrase in the verse wherein the King James translation got it wrong?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Yes, 2 Sam 21;19. My typo.

  And the KJV didn't actually get it wrong, by strict interp, but it ADDED the words "the brother of". However, some KJVOs say other versions that don't include that phrase got it wrong. Hard to do when it's a LITERAL transalation of the Hebrew.

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.

First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning.  Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew.  Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near."  If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother.  As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation.  By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work.  You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to).  However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And of course the translators have the HONESTY to denote EVERY instance where they included extra words for clarity.

How many other "translations" do that?

Most don't have any indication of when they have done similar.

Thanks for pointing out the honesty of the KJV translational process.

Not really having much success with these errors.... in spite of your constant implying that there are many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Thanks for this Bro. Dave. I was going to add something very much like it to my last reply, but figured I had said enough.

Well brother, from the way he has been talking, I was expecting lots of errors to be pointed to and difficult things to answer (but I am confident that a suitable answer could be found), and yet all we have had is a couple of instances which are answered easily, and the second of which actually points to errors in other version whilst displaying the integrity of the KJV translational process.

Not really sure what he was trying to achieve with this last one?????

For those who don't know, the passage he has pointed to about Goliath, in many versions credits someone else with killing Goliath, when the KJV, because of the words added for clarity AND italicized to show such, clarifies the point by pointing out that in that passage it was "the brother of" Goliath.....

2 Sam 21

19  And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother ofGoliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. 

to leave out the italicized phrase "the brother of", would appear to credit Elhanan with killing Goliath, but as we all know David did that. 

So which is right?

He talks elsewhere about ease of understanding, then tries to use this against the KJV?

How much explanation would have to be done to give a proper understanding of this matter when 1 Sam 17 says one thing and 2 Sam 21 says another. Yet a KJV reader would read the two passages and understand instantly and clearly.

Again we have a contradiction of this man - you cannot use both sides of the same argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.

First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning.  Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew.  Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near."  If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother.  As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation.  By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work.  You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to).  However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

  But then, of course, a STRICTLY-LITERAL translation of the Hebrew can't be incorrect, either, unless the Hebrew itself is.

12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

When I was first saved over forty years ago, I was taught first the basics of reading and studying the Bible. One of the first basics I remember is being taught that the italicized words were words that were added to facilitate the readers understanding. Silly me I thought everybody knew this, but I guess I was wrong.

Now, for someone to come along at this late date and insist that this basic feature of italicized words is adding to Scripture, is disingenuous at best and deceitful at the worst.

  I understand, of course, that sometimes words must be added in translation to make the passage understandable in English, which has many more words than the Scriptural languages do, but OTOH, a strictly-literal translation can't be incorrect, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DaveW said:

Well brother, from the way he has been talking, I was expecting lots of errors to be pointed to and difficult things to answer (but I am confident that a suitable answer could be found), and yet all we have had is a couple of instances which are answered easily, and the second of which actually points to errors in other version whilst displaying the integrity of the KJV translational process.

Not really sure what he was trying to achieve with this last one?????

For those who don't know, the passage he has pointed to about Goliath, in many versions credits someone else with killing Goliath, when the KJV, because of the words added for clarity AND italicized to show such, clarifies the point by pointing out that in that passage it was "the brother of" Goliath.....

2 Sam 21

19  And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother ofGoliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. 

to leave out the italicized phrase "the brother of", would appear to credit Elhanan with killing Goliath, but as we all know David did that. 

So which is right?

He talks elsewhere about ease of understanding, then tries to use this against the KJV?

How much explanation would have to be done to give a proper understanding of this matter when 1 Sam 17 says one thing and 2 Sam 21 says another. Yet a KJV reader would read the two passages and understand instantly and clearly.

Again we have a contradiction of this man - you cannot use both sides of the same argument.

  Are we SURE the Israelis didn't call the brother of the original Goliath whom David killed, also Goliath? After all, it seems "Goliath" was a Hebrew nickname; thus it could've been applied to multiple people in the manner "Junior" or "Bubba" are applied today. Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  Are we SURE the Israelis didn't call the brother of the original Goliath whom David killed, also Goliath? After all, it seems "Goliath" was a Hebrew nickname; thus it could've been applied to multiple people in the manner "Junior" or "Bubba" are applied today. Just saying...

We are sure that the KJV is correct and more easily understandable in this matter.

Certainly more correct than your conjecture about something that is nowhere indicated in Scripture.

Your argument is based on nothing of consequence and designed to cause doubt, not clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

We are sure that the KJV is correct and more easily understandable in this matter.

Certainly more correct than your conjecture about something that is nowhere indicated in Scripture.

Your argument is based on nothing of consequence and designed to cause doubt, not clarity.

 Well, ACTUALLY, it's to emphasize the fact that the literal translation can't be wrong unless the source is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
33 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 Well, ACTUALLY, it's to emphasize the fact that the literal translation can't be wrong unless the source is wrong.

That doesn't even make sense - mind explaining what you mean, because to me it appears as though you are just smoke screening with irrelevant stuff...... again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Ah, so the words of possible error are the italicized words "the brother of" in 2 Samuel 21:19.

First, let it be acknowledged that the King James translators did indeed italicize those words in order to indicate that those words are not precisely found in the original Hebrew, but are added for a grammatical and interpretational measure of the meaning.  Second, whether the addition of those words is in error is really centered upon how we should take the Hebrew particle "ehth," that IS in the Hebrew original and that stands just before the name Goliath in that original Hebrew.  Sometimes that Hebrew particle simply indicates the direct object of a verb, but other times that Hebrew particle indicates a relationship which may carry the meaning of "with, at, by, near."  If the latter is the case in 2 Samuel 21:19, then the giant whom Elhanan slew was a giant who could be described relationally as being "with" Goliath, such as Goliath's brother.  As such, the addition of the italicized words in the King James translation does NOT indicate an outright inaccuracy in translation.  By definition translation work does require at least a small measure of interpretational work.  You may not agree with the interpretational choice of the translators (such as when they chose to capitalize the word "Spirit" and when they chose not to).  However, in the case of 2 Samuel 21:19 their translational choice is NOT inaccurate to the possible meaning of the Hebrew phrasing that is actually found in the Hebrew text.

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  But then, of course, a STRICTLY-LITERAL translation of the Hebrew can't be incorrect, either, unless the Hebrew itself is.

  I understand, of course, that sometimes words must be added in translation to make the passage understandable in English, which has many more words than the Scriptural languages do, but OTOH, a strictly-literal translation can't be incorrect, either.

Indeed.  So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be --

". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ."

or --

". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ."

However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother).

Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation.  However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all.

 

2 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  Are we SURE the Israelis didn't call the brother of the original Goliath whom David killed, also Goliath? After all, it seems "Goliath" was a Hebrew nickname; thus it could've been applied to multiple people in the manner "Junior" or "Bubba" are applied today. Just saying...

I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture.  The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19.  Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar and spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed.  So, if we take the Hebrew particle "ehth" (which stands just before the word Goliath in the Hebrew text) as meaning "with, at, by, near" (which it sometimes and often means), then a strictly literal translation would be --

". . . Where Alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one with Goliath . . ."

or --

". . . Where alhanan the son of Jaar'eoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew one near Goliath . . ."

However, it must be understood that in this context the words "with" or "near" do NOT indicate spacial or locational connection, but indicate relational connection, that is -- one who was "with" or "near" Goliath in relationship (such as Goliath's brother).

Now, under the heading of this thread discussion, you presented this case as a "goof" or "booboo" in the King James translation.  However, a strict consideration of the Hebrew text reveals that this is NOT a "goof" or "booboo" at all.

 

I am SURE that it is best to translate as most accurate to the original text as possible without engaging in outright conjecture.  The Hebrew text does NOT say anything about a nickname anywhere, ether for Goliath himself or for the individual references in 2 Samuel 21:19.  Therefore, I see no need to conjecture about it.

 The fact that Goliath  & Lahmi are hebrew names says a lot, as we know the Philistines used another language. And from jewish history, we know the used nicknames same as we do. So we can't rule out that some old Israelis called two separate giants "Goliath".

 However, I don't believe anyone seriously denies that David & Elhanan whacked different giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 The fact that Goliath  & Lahmi are hebrew names says a lot, as we know the Philistines used another language. And from jewish history, we know the used nicknames same as we do. So we can't rule out that some old Israelis called two separate giants "Goliath".

 However, I don't believe anyone seriously denies that David & Elhanan whacked different giants.

Except for those that read any one of a number of MV's which clearly state WITHOUT Explanation that both David and Elhanan killed Goliath, and there is no explanation nor indication that they were different men - people reading one of the two passages would come to entirely different conclusions depending upon which they read, and since both passages refer to an UNUSUAL man called Goliath, the obvious conclusion is that they are the same man and there is a mistake in the Bible.

If however, those men were reading the KJV they would read the verses as stated without even the smallest thought of a contradiction.

SINCE YOU HAVE SPOUTED OFTEN AND LOUDLY about the matter of explanation somehow being a bad thing, YOU MUST BY YOUR OWN CONDITIONS agree that any version that doesn't include the note as in the KJV is INFERIOR - because the KJV makes the need for explanation in this case unnecessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...