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.

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


BibleBeliever5
 Share

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, John Young said:

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

Brother Young,

Without seeking to answer whether an "archaism" is either good or bad, I simply would ask -- Based upon the definition of an "archaism," does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
23 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"

It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying.

The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. 
 

Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Brother Young,

Without seeking to answer whether an "archaism" is either good or bad, I simply would ask -- Based upon the definition of an "archaism," does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"?

4 hours ago, John Young said:

It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept. 

Well, in my post above I was talking to you, Brother John Young, and asking you, Brother John Young, a question.

On the other hand, if someone is talking to me, Pastor Scott Markle, and asking me that same question, I would be compelled to answer that yes indeed there are archaisms in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  An "archaism" is defined as "an archaic word, usage, style, practice, etc."  The word "archaic" is defined as "belonging to an earlier period, ancient; antiquated, old-fashioned; that has ceased to be used except for specific purposes, as in poetry, church ritual, etc."  Now, my admission above does NOT mean that I am arguing that "archaisms" are either good or bad to retain or remove.  Rather, I believe that when considering a subject, it is best to consider ALL of the relevant facts in relation to that subject; and from my own perspective the factual existence of "archaisms" (in word usage, spelling, grammatical construction, punctuation, etc.) is a relevant fact in relation to this subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
48 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I have no interest

That's fine. I' haven't attacked you. I simply shared my concerns with your terminology and my views on the subject matter. You and anyone else can share your "Thoughts about an update to the KJV" in this thread if you want as well. 
 

6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would be compelled to answer that yes indeed there are archaisms

In my opinion "archaisms" is a fundamentally is flawed concept. Much less one that should be a primary consideration in updating scripture. As an example, the material of Mark Ward in particular shows the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". So no, I personally to not consider the words of scripture to be archaic, nor do I consider it, on its own, a valid reason to change any word for a more "modern" equivalent. Just like fads "modern" changes like the wind but the classical seldom does. It is better to learn a word than to change a word.

Now, could there be a better grammatical concept or mode of spelling that comes into use that better conveys something present in scripture? Or is the update's primary focuses on purity, precision and accuracy of scripture? and not simply modernization for the sack of it? then in my opinion I may consider such updates. As I said before I am not opposed to updates if they are actually needed for biblically right reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
19 minutes ago, John Young said:

..the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". 

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
22 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I thought the 1611 was the the most common around ifb folk. 

Not my experience, most have the same one I have and provide the same quotations I find in my 1769 KJV-AV.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, John Young said:

That's fine. I' haven't attacked you. I simply shared my concerns with your terminology and my views on the subject matter. You and anyone else can share your "Thoughts about an update to the KJV" in this thread if you want as well. 
 

In my opinion "archaisms" is a fundamentally is flawed concept. Much less one that should be a primary consideration in updating scripture. As an example, the material of Mark Ward in particular shows the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". So no, I personally to not consider the words of scripture to be archaic, nor do I consider it, on its own, a valid reason to change any word for a more "modern" equivalent. Just like fads "modern" changes like the wind but the classical seldom does. It is better to learn a word than to change a word.

 

Every word that John said is correct. I have seen lists of 'archaic' words that do not match each other. I have heard of 'archaic' words that I do not consider archaic. A long time ago I started to check the 'archaic' words in a modern dictionary and found all of the ones in a modern dictionary that were considered archaic. I did not check every one as the list of words considered 'archaic' was too long and opinions change.

Also, in my first post I mentioned that those individuals who use the KJV and do not want to see it updated would be considered dunces and idiots. After reading Jordan's post I guess I need to add the word 'superstitious' to my list.

I am of the opinion that the 'archaic' words in the KJV is a smokescreen to allow the translator, or translation committee, to produce another version of the Bible to make more money and help their denomination or business. All, repeat all, of the versions from the RV 1882 version to the NKJV are not accurate translations of the written word of God. The new translations use deceit to peddle their wares (translations). The deceit can be read in every 'Introduction' or 'Preface' of the translation. The modern version translators use the deceit of 'modernizing' the 'archaic' words, updating the scriptures, using the 'original' Greek, and other reasons, to deceive the religious public.

In other words, I am of the persuasion that the 1769 edition of the King James Version is a faithful rendition of the 1611 King James Version and is adequate, accurate, faithful and does not need updating in any way or manner; including the 'archaic' words.

Edited by Alan
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Other than spelling, were there any substantial updates in the language of the KJV from 1611 to 1769?  1769 is still about 250 years ago....

You can go on line and compare them verse by verse for several of your favorite KJV passages. There were grammatical revisions, standardized punctuation, and changes in the presentation of letters 'v' for 'u' is just one example. Go check it out, I did some 30 or 40 years ago and have forgotten most of what was done. The new modern English of the 1769 is preferred by many (I say most) but some still like to see words like "Couenant" over the newer "Covenant" [Joshua 3:11] but not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I'm trying not to be an advocate but those objections hardly seem argue worthy. Not everyone has a dictionary handy, nor are even in the practice of looking up words. ( I agree they should be, it would be unwise for them not to be) Besom was the word for broom back then, as that was what the broom was.

Maybe something between our wants are not being communicated well enough for an image board. Anyways this is going to my last post in this thread, I see no edification in this any longer.

Just a suggestion: Folks could use their 'smart' phone to look up word meaning? Most people who wouldn't understand 1769 English have a 'smart' phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary?  Shouldn't we be able to have understandable words in such a scenario?  Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

Folks could do what the Bible instructs wives to do if they have a question: 1 Corinthians 14:35   "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:" So, if you're a husband or single, study and or ask your pastor. The age of the microwave 'can't wait for my soup to heat up,' has invaded Bible study. Don't we have time to spend on here debating over the need for changes to English? So, why can't folks devote more time to the things that are eternal and forsake some of the present, go study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know that in my contact with people I may use modern language to witness to them. It's because I have forgotten more once memorized verses than I probably should admit. So, I have to paraphrase even my preferred 1769 version. But, all of this discussion is just a diversion from what we all need to do--more witnessing. The greater problem in the world today is too little labor for the harvest and too much of having the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

So that there is understanding of my own position here - I would agree with the above comment.  There are likely to be many words which some would classify as "archaic" that are viewed as such simply because of societal ignorance.  However, as I stated in my posting above to Brother Young, I am still compelled to acknowledge that there are indeed some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  To give an example - Ending verbs with "th" is now an "archaic" element of the English language.  Do I believe that this "archaic" element hinders understanding overmuch.  No, I do not.  Yet I am still compelled to acknowledge the fact that it is an "archaic" element.  

By the way, I myself do NOT believe that an "update" is of much value in the present day; and I would NOT likely be interested in supporting such an effort or using such a product.  The primary reason is that the controversy over the matter of translations has grown far too large for yet another revision/update attempt.  Even more, this controversy exists because the deception of false translations has grown beyond measure in our time.  I do not see that it is valuable for us to add yet more to the mix, but to remain firmly planted on a foundation of proven ground (even if it requires a little extra effort in Bible study and Bible learning).

So then, why did I even engage the matter of "archaisms"?  I did so because from my perspective the existence of some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation is a FACT.  Even so, (from my perspective) denying or ignoring facts on a subject can only skew a legitimate consideration and understanding of that subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 hours ago, Salyan said:

My experience from people who claim not to understand the KJV because it's too 'hard' or 'old-fashioned', is that they object to the thee's and thou's and to the (apparently) big words.  I would contend that removing all thee's and thou's for modern pronoun usage would reduce accuracy, and ditto for "simplifying" words.  I'd really love to have the OP respond to my query as to examples of the words he would update, and their replacement, to see if my experience holds true. 
 

Hi, the idea is not to simplify words, but to modernize them.  As much as I love the KJV, there are archaic words in the KJV that we normally do not use today.  What would be wrong with updating rejoiceth to rejoices?  or peradventure to perhaps?  I heard a preacher who actually would read the "eth" ending words out loud as we say them today when he was reading Scripture in church.  The idea is not to change the meaning of anything, but to use modern language with the same meaning.  Other versions actually change meanings in the KJV, which is not the idea I originally posted about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I know that in my contact with people I may use modern language to witness to them. It's because I have forgotten more once memorized verses than I probably should admit. So, I have to paraphrase even my preferred 1769 version. But, all of this discussion is just a diversion from what we all need to do--more witnessing. The greater problem in the world today is too little labor for the harvest and too much of having the last word.

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

You can go on line and compare them verse by verse for several of your favorite KJV passages. There were grammatical revisions, standardized punctuation, and changes in the presentation of letters 'v' for 'u' is just one example. Go check it out, I did some 30 or 40 years ago and have forgotten most of what was done. The new modern English of the 1769 is preferred by many (I say most) but some still like to see words like "Couenant" over the newer "Covenant" [Joshua 3:11] but not me.

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Correct.  Although there were a small handful of word changes, the great majority of updates in the 1769 edition of the King James translation were spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and italics changes.

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

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi, the idea is not to simplify words, but to modernize them.  As much as I love the KJV, there are archaic words in the KJV that we normally do not use today.  What would be wrong with updating rejoiceth to rejoices?  or peradventure to perhaps?  I heard a preacher who actually would read the "eth" ending words out loud as we say them today when he was reading Scripture in church.  The idea is not to change the meaning of anything, but to use modern language with the same meaning.  Other versions actually change meanings in the KJV, which is not the idea I originally posted about.

 

Those specific examples would not concern me (unless there’s some grammatical meaning to that suffix that I am not aware of). Although it’s pretty easy to understand either way and, IMO, not worth the bother. (I probably still wouldn’t use the new version, because I prefer the more poetic original.) 

Your issue with ‘rejoiceth’ isn’t that it is an archaic word, though; it is the word form/suffix you would like to change.  The root word itself is in common use.
And I will say that ‘peradventure‘ is a lovely word still commonly used well into the 20th century - it would be a shame to lose it completely from our vocabulary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Salyan said:

And I will say that ‘peradventure‘ is a lovely word still commonly used well into the 20th century - it would be a shame to lose it completely from our vocabulary. 

Sister Salyan,

I myself would agree with your comment above.  I would retain "peradventure," and NOT change it to "perhaps."  Such would be one of those cases wherein I would NOT view the word "peradventure" as an "archaic" word, but simply as a less used "modern" word due to societal ignorance. 

(Joke warning - I am starting to paint up my protest signs now: KEEP the word "peradventure.")

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
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.

 Share

  • 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...