Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

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

  • IFB
54 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

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?

Its a basic bible concept. God committed the oracles* first to the church in the wilderness and then to us, his NT church with the commission to preach and teach it. The believer has the Spirit of Christ within them which convicts the lost through preaching. The lost cannot believe without the Chrisitian preaching it to them.

*4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures. ~Webster's 1828

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Titus 1:3 but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 4:10-11 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 

Acts 8:30-37 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 11:12-16 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself,

So do you want to update the bible for unbelievers to be able to understand it on their own? I don't think such a thing is truly possible. They need a Spirit filled preacher to speak the Words of Life.  I would rather have a written bible that equips the believer, so that the believer can do what they were commissioned to do. 

John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Matthew 13:10-11 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

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.

Sorry; but in relation to the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the "natural man" of verse 14 is indeed the "non-believer" (that is -- the lost individual who is "unspiritual" because he or she is yet spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins").  As far as your argument that such would prevent the lost from understanding the gospel, the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2 divides the gospel message from the "wisdom of God."  In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 the apostle spoke concerning his proclamation of the gospel (which the lost individual can understand through the drawing/convicting work of God).  In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 the apostle spoke concerning the broader "wisdom of God" (which the lost individual cannot grasp on the spiritual level because such requires spiritual discernment and he or she is yet spiritually dead).

 

1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

I myself am also compelled to contend that this is a poor example of "archaic" English.  The only "archaic" elements in this verse would be the "st" ending on "treasurest" and possibly (and I would say, only slightly possibly) the word "impenitent."  So, what could be used instead of the word "impenitent"?  Maybe the best synonym would be the word "unrepentant."  However, the word "unrepentant" would be just as uncommon in societal language as the word "impenitent."  Yet the concept/doctrine of repentance (or the lack thereof) carries significant Biblical importance, and must not be discarded.  Here is a case wherein I would definitely contend that the reader needs to LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

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

  • IFB
9 hours ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

That’s not what the Gospel of John says 

John 20:30-31 KJV
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
2 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

That’s not what the Gospel of John says

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

John 1:6-7 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

The Book of John was written to explain the Spiritual aspects of the gospel to the believer and in the first chapter it explains a witness from God was needed for the lost to comprehend. Before one can believe the scriptures they must first repent unto God and the Book of John does not deal with repentance directly but rather the process of believing. 

That is not to say the scripters cannot be used in the process of witnessing but that God uses believers, preaching through the Spirit, to propagate it and that the lost cannot receive its spiritual meaning alone. Without the proclamation of the Spirit filled believer the lost have no draw to salvation.

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
12 hours ago, John Young said:

Its a basic bible concept. God committed the oracles* first to the church in the wilderness and then to us, his NT church with the commission to preach and teach it. The believer has the Spirit of Christ within them which convicts the lost through preaching. The lost cannot believe without the Chrisitian preaching it to them.

*4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures. ~Webster's 1828

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Titus 1:3 but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

2 Peter 1:20-21 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

1 Peter 4:10-11 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. 11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Romans 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 

Acts 8:30-37 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Acts 11:12-16 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house: 13 and he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; 14 who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. 16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sorry; but in relation to the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the "natural man" of verse 14 is indeed the "non-believer" (that is -- the lost individual who is "unspiritual" because he or she is yet spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins").  As far as your argument that such would prevent the lost from understanding the gospel, the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2 divides the gospel message from the "wisdom of God."  In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 the apostle spoke concerning his proclamation of the gospel (which the lost individual can understand through the drawing/convicting work of God).  In 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 the apostle spoke concerning the broader "wisdom of God" (which the lost individual cannot grasp on the spiritual level because such requires spiritual discernment and he or she is yet spiritually dead).

 

I myself am also compelled to contend that this is a poor example of "archaic" English.  The only "archaic" elements in this verse would be the "st" ending on "treasurest" and possibly (and I would say, only slightly possibly) the word "impenitent."  So, what could be used instead of the word "impenitent"?  Maybe the best synonym would be the word "unrepentant."  However, the word "unrepentant" would be just as uncommon in societal language as the word "impenitent."  Yet the concept/doctrine of repentance (or the lack thereof) carries significant Biblical importance, and must not be discarded.  Here is a case wherein I would definitely contend that the reader needs to LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

[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.

 

2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Romans 10:14 (KJV) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Do you think these verses mean non-believers can not read and learn about Jesus in the Bible?  That's not what it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

None of that proves that non-believers require a Christian to understand Scripture. 

Okay then....Do you believe they can understand the Spiritual aspects of scripture without the Spirit of Christ?

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
22 minutes ago, John Young said:

Okay then....Do you believe they can understand the Spiritual aspects of scripture without the Spirit of Christ?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

My main point with verse 14 is that it does not mean all non-believers can never receive the things of the Spirit of God and therefore do not need the Bible in language they can understand.  The gospel is included here as a thing of the Spirit of God (see the context of verse 11).  Of course, non-believers receive the things of God's Spirit when they seek the Lord and believe.  I have heard multiple stories of non-believers personally studying the Bible and through that converting. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

In terms of Romans 2:5, you probably are so used to KJV English that you missed one of the major archaic elements of the verse (thy and thyself).  Another archaic element you missed was "unto."  The dictionary classes both of these elements as archaic.  Nobody in America talks like verse 5 today and the verse would just come across plain odd and not clearly understood by some people, especially to hear it orally.  If they did have someone explain the archaic elements to them, it would take extra unnecessary mental processing for them to try to comprehend the verse.  All of that extra work (explanation and struggling to understand) is simply unnecessary when the same meaning could be communicated in modern English.  The verse is clearly written in archaic English.

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun preposition "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

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

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

Thank you Pastor for your thoughts.  However, I think you are incorrectly limiting the meaning of "the things of the Spirit of God" in v.14 based on a mistaken application of context.  The phrase itself is very broad on its face.  Verse 14 doesn't say these things or "which things" (like in v.13).  Verse 14 simply says "the things."  Verses 6-8 do connect this wisdom of God with the gospel (Christ crucified in v.8).  And in Chapter 1:23-24 the Scriptures connect the gospel with Christ and the wisdom of God.  According to the context in verse 10 and 11, the meaning of the "things of God" is very general and not limited as you say.

[1Co 2:10-11 KJV] 10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Notice in verse 10, "all things, yea, the deep things of God."  Verse 14 is not constrained by some of the previous concepts.  He has been talking about a variety of "things of God" before verse 14.  So I interpret verse 14 as again being very general, including the gospel.  And even your interpretation does not fit in verse 14.  So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers?  They can and do receive these things as they seek God, hear about these things, and then become believers.  Verse 14 is talking about natural men as non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual.  

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828.

unto

UN'TO, prep. a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.  (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

 

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Incorrect.  In the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is only referenced in verses 1-5, and therein is referenced as "the testimony of God" (that is -- "Jesus Christ, and him crucified").  Now, it is correct that the gospel must be proclaimed to the lost, "not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."  Thus it is correct that the Holy Spirit is involved in the drawing/convicting process whereby lost individuals may come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as personal Savior.

However, within the entire context of 1 Corinthians 2, the gospel is NOT included in the references made throughout verses 6-16.  In verse 6 the apostle began to speak about "the wisdom of God" (in distinction from "the testimony of God" from verses 1-5).  In verse 9 he indicated that this "wisdom of God" is specifically "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (that is -- believers), and that it does not enter into the heart of lost individuals.  In verse 10 the apostle indicated that this "wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," are specifically revealed by God unto us believers "by his Spirit."  Furthermore, in verse 12 he indicated that we believers have received "the spirit which is of God" (that is -- the indwelling of the Holy Spirit) specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."  Thus contextually when verse 14 speaks concerning "the things of the Spirit of God," it is speaking concerning "the wisdom of God," "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him [believers]," "the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God," the things that "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believers] by his [indwelling] Spirit."  Even so, such things are specifically that which "the natural man" (that is -- the lost individual) cannot receive or know, specifically because they require the spiritual discernment that can come only through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
 

Ok, you are correct that I did not mention the "archaic" usage of "thy" and "thyself."  Factually, these second person pronouns are "archaic" elements of the English language.  Thus I should have mentioned them in my list.  However, I did NOT neglect to do so because I am "so used to the KJV English."  Rather, I neglected to do so because I recognize that these pronouns exist in the King James translation specifically for the purpose of accuracy.  In present-day common English we do not have a second person pronoun that distinguishes the singular from the plural.  We use the second person pronoun "you" for both singular and plural usage.  However, both the Hebrew and Greek DO have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  Furthermore, the English language DID in its past have distinct pronouns for the plural and singular of the second person usage.  The pronouns "thee" and "thy" were the singular second person pronouns, and the pronouns "ye" and "you" were the plural second person pronouns.  Even so, I will contend that the "thee" and "thy" pronouns MUST be retained in our English translation specifically for the sake of precise accuracy, and that this is another case wherein the reader must LEARN, rather than the translation be changed.

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage.

By the way Pastor, do you not think it would be valuable for non-Christians (and Christians) to have the Scriptures in their own modern language that they know and understand?

Edited by BibleBeliever5
More information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
5 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

As far as the preposition "unto," I simply do not agree.  For one who is a common reader of English books, I find that the pronoun "unto" is still in fairly common usage. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

You are correct that the word "unto" is NOT a pronoun.  Rather, it is a PREPOSITION.  If you notice in my comment above, I referred to it as a "preposition" first; however, in the second line I presented a type error in calling it a "pronoun."  That was not my error of understanding, but of typing faster than I was thinking.  I do apologize for that error on my part. I have now corrected my typing error in the posting above (but have allowed the word "pronoun" to remain with a strike through, in order to maintain the evidence of your correction).

 

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

  • IFB
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You think that unto is not archaic, but the dictionary is the authority on this.  And it says otherwise.  I should also add that unto is not a pronoun as you said.  Do you know what Noah Webster said about unto?  He called it entirely obsolete back in 1828.

unto

UN'TO, prep. a compound of un, [on,] and to; of no use in the language, as it expresses no more than to. I do not find it in our mother tongue, nor is it ever used in popular discourse. It is found in writers of former times, but is entirely obsolete.  (Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

It appears that you have some substantial evidence for your claim that the preposition "unto" is "archaic."  I was simply responding based upon my personal experience.  Having received a more "classical" high school education in the 1980s, I was taught to understand "unto" as a preposition along with a whole list of other prepositions.  In my personal experience of reading, I have found "unto" to be a natural preposition without any confusion whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Thank you Pastor for your thoughts.  However, I think you are incorrectly limiting the meaning of "the things of the Spirit of God" in v.14 based on a mistaken application of context.  The phrase itself is very broad on its face.  Verse 14 doesn't say these things or "which things" (like in v.13).  Verse 14 simply says "the things."  Verses 6-8 do connect this wisdom of God with the gospel (Christ crucified in v.8).  And in Chapter 1:23-24 the Scriptures connect the gospel with Christ and the wisdom of God.  According to the context in verse 10 and 11, the meaning of the "things of God" is very general and not limited as you say.

Brother "BibleBeliever," 

With all due respect it is doubtful that either of us will change the other's mind on this matter.  However, for the sake of the audience, I shall present my case more thoroughly, as follows:

1 Corinthians 2:1 ends with the phrase, "Declaring unto you the testimony of God."  I have and am contending that "the testimony of God" is that about which the apostle Paul spoke throughout verses 1-5, but that he spoke about something different throughout verses 6-16.  Let us consider --

I.  The "testimony of God" declared to the Corinthians (vs. 1-5)

     A.  Declared when the apostle first came unto the Corinthians (v. 1)
     B.  Declared without "excellency of speech or of wisdom" (v. 1)
     C.  Declared as no other message than "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (the gospel) (v. 2)
     D.  Declared with an approach "in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling" (v. 3)
     E.  Declared without "enticing words of man's wisdom" (v. 4)
     F.  Declared "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (v. 4)
     G.  Declared this way in order that saving faith "should not stand in the wisdom of men" (v. 5)
     H.  Declared this way in order that saving faith should stand "in the power of God" (v. 5)

(Note: This passage helps us to understand the manner in which we should approach the lost with the gospel of Jesus Christ, not at all in the manner of men's wisdom, but totally through the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit.)

Then the apostle began 1 Corinthians 2:6 with the conjunctive adverb "howbeit," an adverb (and conjunction) of contrast meaning "however it may be, nevertheless."  Thus in verse 6 the apostle began to speak concerning something different and in contrast to that about which he spoke in verses 1-5.  In the opening line of verse 6, the apostle specified this new subject, saying, "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect;" and in the opening line of verse 7, he specified this new subject, saying, "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery."

II.  The "wisdom of God" spoken "among them that are perfect" (vs. 6-ff)

     A.  Spoken "among them that are perfect" (v. 6)
     B.  Specifically NOT "the wisdom of this world" or "of the princes of this world" (which is worthless) (v. 6)
     C.  Defined as "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" (v. 7)
     D.  Ordained by God "before the world unto our [believer's] glory" (v. 7)
     E.  Specifically NOT known by ANY of the princes of this world (v. 8 )

(Note: The closing half of verse 8 is NOT about the gospel message itself, but is about the evidence of the world's ignorance concerning the wisdom of God, as evidenced by their act of crucifying "the Lord of glory.")

     F.  Specifically NOT a wisdom that has "entered into the heart of man" (v. 9)
     G.  Defined, in contrast, as "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (for believer's) (v. 9)
     H.  Defined as that which "God hath revealed . . . unto us [believer's] by his Spirit" (v. 10)
     I.   Defined as "the deep things of God" which only the Spirit of God searches out (vs. 10-11)
     J.  Specifically NOT learned through "the spirit of the world" (v. 12)
     K.  Specifically learned through the Spirit that we believers have received, "the spirit which is of God" (v. 12)
     L.  Specifically intended for us believers to know through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit (v. 12)
     M.  Defined as "the things that are freely given" to us believers "of God" (v. 12)
     N.  Defined as the things that the apostle did NOT teach "in the words which man's wisdom teacheth" (v. 13)
     O.  Defined as the things that the apostle taught in the words "which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (v. 13)

(Note: Throughout verses 6-13 we have now encountered three significant contrasts.  First, we have encountered the contrast between the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of God.  Second, we have encountered the contrast between the lack of understanding in this wisdom of God by the lost world and the specific preparation of this wisdom by God for believers.  Third, we have encountered the contrast between "the spirit of the world," which cannot aid us in learning this wisdom of God, and "the spirit which is of God," which we as believers have received specifically that we my "know the things that are freely given to us of God.")  

Now, all of the above establishes the contextual flow of thought for the declaration of verse 14 -- "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 

Throughout verses 6-14 the wisdom that is spoken "among them that are perfect" from verse 6 is the same as "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" from verse 7, the same as "the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9, the same as "the deep things of God" from verse 10, the same as "the things that are freely given unto us [believers] of God" from verse 12, the same as the things which the apostle spoke in the words "which the Holy Ghost speaketh" from verse 13, and the same as "the things of the Spirit of God" from verse 14.  Furthermore, throughout verses 6-14 the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in union with "the wisdom of this world" from verse 6, "the princes of this world" from verses 6 & 8, the ones in whose heart God's wisdom has not entered from verse 9, "the spirit of the world" from verse 12, and "the words which man's wisdom teacheth" from verse 13.   Finally, throughout verses 6-14 the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in direct contrast to "them that are perfect" from verse 6, to them that love God from verse 9, to the "us" unto whom God has revealed His wisdom by His Spirit from verse 10, and to the "we" who have received "the spirit which is of God" specifically "that we may know the things that are freely given to us of God" from verse 12.  In addition, the "natural man" from verse 14 stands in direct contrast to the one "that is spiritual" from verse 15 and to the "we" who "have the mind of Christ" from verse 16.  Even so, we are able to conclude that "the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom" that is referenced throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 is specifically for believers, and not for the unbelieving world.  Furthermore, we are able to conclude that the "natural man" from verse 14 is a descriptive for the unbelievers of this world.  They do not receive this "wisdom of God" because they find it to be foolishness, and they are not even able to know this "wisdom of God" because it requires spiritual discernment through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that they have not yet received.  (Note: Defining the "natural man" from verse 14 as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual" finds NO support within the context of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16.)  

From my perspective, attempting to separate the truth of 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the whole context of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 simply detracts from one's credibility as a Bible student, and thus also from one's credibility to propose changes to the Bible translation.  Although I myself have not and do not take a "strict traditionalist" viewpoint on the matter of "updating," I would not trust any to engage in "updating" whom I do not even find trustworthy in grammatical and contextual Bible study.

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

  • IFB
3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

And even your interpretation does not fit in verse 14.  So are you saying all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God, the things that are freely given to believers? 

I believe that I have answered this question in my above posting as follows:

5 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, we are able to conclude that the "natural man" from verse 14 is a descriptive for the unbelievers of this world.  They do not receive this "wisdom of God" because they find it to be foolishness, and they are not even able to know this "wisdom of God" because it requires spiritual discernment through the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit that they have not yet received. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
37 minutes ago, Alan said:

The American Heritage Dictionary does not, repeat, does not, list the word "unto" as archaic.

And that's the issue with updating based on archaism. Words and grammar fall in and out of common use. The fact that the King James has been the common bible for over 400 years and has been attributed  to being one of the major influence in stabilizing English, means that even if a section of the population feels that portions are out of date, that is only their subjective opinion.

Because of its common status and continued influance and role in English psych, everything contained in it, other than spelling changed from 1611, is not archaic. Rather, as part of popular english christian litature (and the most sold and read bible version) is very much in common use (more than Shakespeare, and on par with news papers and magazines) even if one section of the population is not familiar with it's various aspects and unique traits.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
22 minutes ago, John Young said:

And that's the issue with updating based on archaism. Words and grammar fall in and out of common use. The fact that the King James has been the common bible for over 400 years and has been attributed  to being one of the major influence in stabilizing English, means that even if a section of the population feels that portions are out of date, that is only their subjective opinion.

 

Every word that John Young stated is correct.

The main issue of this thread is "only their subjective opinion" of those who want to find fault with the Authorized Version; in this case the 1769 edition, in order to justify the translating of a new version.

Therefore, as I stated in my first post, the reason why I would not not vote in this poll is that I feel this poll is an incorrect poll.

The Authorized Version, in this case the 1769 edition, is already simple for the average user, can be understandable using a common dictionary if the person has a problem with a word, the context of the word usually gives its meaning, and is accurate and faithful to the most trustworthy manuscripts.

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to have another translation of the Authorized Version, commonly called the KJV of 1611, of the Bible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • Heaven_Came_Down earned a badge
      First Post
    • couple earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • couple earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Rando went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...