Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      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.

God preserving his word


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

That all depends...your defintion of "advances," "scholarship," "and what you consider ancient languages. I don't believe that any of these loses it's meaning if one can compare to books of the same time period, actually has access to the meaning of the words from that time through the people, the context in which things were written, etc. It still comes down to context and content.

Books of the same era, yes. But books from different eras, there are differences as people in the later era could not without great difficulty understand what in written in the oldest text. Chaucer's Canterbury tales is an example. Shakespeare's writing is easier to understand as it is in Early Modern English. Yes, some of his sentences and words are hard for many moderns to understand. For instance Shakespeare has  Macbeth say,  "Lay on McDuff." Most people today misunderstand this phrase. It is not an invitation to attack, but "after you," or I'll follow you. 

Time change, words change, meaning changes, and some words disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SureWord said:

There is nothing in the KJV that a modern English speaker cannot understand. I'm a high school dropout with a GED who never attended college and who never read a book prior to my salvation yet I could understand. 

The bottomline is do you believe that God is powerful enough to give us his words without error in a language we can read and understand.

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

BB, though this question is not directed to me, as I stated before, anyone worth their salt could find these words in supplemental books, dictionaries, or even in today's society, google them and get the meanings. It's not that hard. You seem to have a knack of trying to make things difficult when they shouldn't be. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

BB, though this question is not directed to me, as I stated before, anyone worth their salt could find these words in supplemental books, dictionaries, or even in today's society, google them and get the meanings. It's not that hard. You seem to have a knack of trying to make things difficult when they shouldn't be. 😉

You give a good argument as to why modern translations should be used. Thanks for supporting my belief. 

I do not understand Job 15:26-27 as stated in King James. But, if I check a modern translation I can gain an understanding of the passage. I would quote one here, but it seems I am not allowed to quote anything except King James. No comparisons, I guess. 

Edited by Bouncing Bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
33 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

You give a good argument as to why modern translations should be used. Thanks for supporting my belief. 

I do not understand Job 15:26-27 as stated in King James. But, if I check a modern translation I can gain an understanding of the passage. I would quote one here, but it seems I am not allowed to quote anything except King James. No comparisons, I guess. 

I can't say that I don't use other translations as supplements, but I DEPEND on the KJV. It's my preferred version. I grew up with it, and I'm more familiar with it than other translations. I don't try to discourage others from reading the other translaions if they wish, because God has already stated that his Word would not come back void. But, I also emphasize that the KJ was written in the same era as Shakespeare, and that it's written on an 8th grade level...at least that's what they said it was when I was younger. Now, they're saying it's written on an 11th or 12th grade level. I guess that's from the dumbing down of the students through the new teaching methods. UGH! Still...I believe the KJV/TR is the better of the translations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I can't say that I don't use other translations as supplements, but I DEPEND on the KJV. It's my preferred version. I grew up with it, and I'm more familiar with it than other translations. I don't try to discourage others from reading the other translaions if they wish, because God has already stated that his Word would not come back void. But, I also emphasize that the KJ was written in the same era as Shakespeare, and that it's written on an 8th grade level...at least that's what they said it was when I was younger. Now, they're saying it's written on an 11th or 12th grade level. I guess that's from the dumbing down of the students through the new teaching methods. UGH! Still...I believe the KJV/TR is the better of the translations.

The King James Bible is certainly the most poetic translation. This makes it easier to memorize. It is a beautiful read.

Yes, Shakespeare died in 1616, five years after the King James translation was published. 

Yes, the reports of reading level currently says 12th grade. I found the following online:

  • King James Version (KJV): 12th grade
  • Revised Standard Version (RSV): 12th grade
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): 11th grade
  • New Revised Standard Version (RNSV): 11th grade
  • English Standard Version (ESV): 10th grade
  • New International Version (NIV): 8th grade
  • Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV): 8th grade
  • New King James Version (NKJV): 7th grade
  • New Living Translation (NLT): 6th grade
  • God’s Word (GW): 5th grade
  • The Message (MSG): 5th grade
  • New Century Version (NCV): 3rd grade

Do you ever use a parallel Bible where passages from two or three translation are printed side-by-side? 

Have you used the Amplified Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Are you sure?

Do you know the meaning of:

Haply

Minish

Sottish

Withal

Abjects

Barked

Besom

There are many words in the KJ that are not understood by the average person today. 

Do you really understand Job 15:26-27?

26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers:

27 Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

The King James Bible is certainly the most poetic translation. This makes it easier to memorize. It is a beautiful read.

Yes, Shakespeare died in 1616, five years after the King James translation was published. 

Yes, the reports of reading level currently says 12th grade. I found the following online:

  • King James Version (KJV😞 12th grade
  • Revised Standard Version (RSV): 12th grade
  • New American Standard Bible (NASB): 11th grade
  • New Revised Standard Version (RNSV): 11th grade
  • English Standard Version (ESV): 10th grade
  • New International Version (NIV): 8th grade
  • Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV): 8th grade
  • New King James Version (NKJV): 7th grade
  • New Living Translation (NLT): 6th grade
  • God’s Word (GW): 5th grade
  • The Message (MSG): 5th grade
  • New Century Version (NCV): 3rd grade

Do you ever use a parallel Bible where passages from two or three translation are printed side-by-side? 

Have you used the Amplified Bible?

Yes, I've used both the parallel and the Amplified Bibles. I don't own copies of them, though my mother does. 

Now out of the versions you've listed, of course, I use the KJV. Our church used the Holman. One of the churches I helped start in Augusta, GA back in 1984 used to KJVO, then when the new pastor was called from Bob Jones University, he brought the NIV. I wasn't impressed. In fact, it got to be such a sticking point that my wife and I left. Of course, the debate over KJV and other versions hadn't really reached a fevered pitch yet, but it was starting to get there in some IFB churches. We left what was Garden City Baptist Church and went to Providence Baptist Church of Augusta at that point. 

My father had a NKJV in 1984 or 85, I believe..I may be incorrect on the year. He got it from being in contact with Jerry Falwell. I have it packed up, or I could tell you the exact year. My father left that one and went back to the regular KJV, though. The NLT is what our men's Bible study/recovery group in the Cowpunchers Cowboy Church uses. I have a copy of the "hippie Bible," Good News for Modern Man, the RSV and the ESV. I like the ESV to some extent, I NEVER use "The Message" except for reference material/commentary. It's far too much of a paraphrase for me. I've only seen the NSV once...there are several more translations out there, and I've used several of them for research/comparison. I still rely on the KJV, though. 

I believe, as I've stated here, and in other threads, that anyone worth their salt, could get off their backsides and research and find what the meanings are if they'd just follow 2 Tim 2:15. The Bible tells us to study, not just here, but, when it is speaking of how the Bereans studied what was said to see if the things being preached were so. It's our job as Christians to do this...not a translations job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Good for you. Researching is important. 

21 minutes ago, SureWord said:

Yes, except "sottish" which I can't recall off hand.

You know how I learned what they meant? I got off my backside and grabbed a dictionary and looked them up. In a few cases I could grasp the gist of the word by the context it was used in.

There's no excuse for not knowing what a word means especially with the internet. And to hear a college educated person who spent $200,000 on their education cry they can't understand a word is really an embarrassment to our education system. I have an app on my phone that shows the definition of the word and also the root word(s) it is derived from.

Nothing but pure laziness or an excuse to not read the Bible is the reason for these excuses. 

PS: Looking at my app the word "sottish" means a foolish or stupid person and comes from a root word that was used for "drunkard, stupefy". It's where the word "besot" comes from. In England it is still used to refer to a "chronic drinker". 

Good for you. Researching is important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It comes down to this: Bouncing Bill does not believe in the God of the Bible - God who knows all things, and knows that languages change and adapt over time - He knew all this, and yet chose to write His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, knowing it would need to be translated into other languages. God wasn't caught off guard with no pure Word to give the world.

Also, it is simply wrong to define the Bible rather than translate it. It is up to the faithful translators and copyists to render the Word of God exactly as it is given, translate exactly what it says - then let the people of God throughout history study it, learn it, define the words as they study and teach it to others. If you expect a Bible translation to come along that magically defines every word and makes it so no child of God has to study it, then you don't know the Book itself which commands us to study it, compare passages, lean upon the Holy Spirit for understanding. Lost people want a Bible they can understand without putting the effort into it - YET God's Word itself states that the natural (ie. unsaved) man CANNOT understand it; therefore, translating and changing the Bible in such a way that the LOST can receive it as is, is going totally counter to God's purposes.

Sounds a bit like what happened with the world at Babel:

Genesis 11:1-7 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jerry said:

It comes down to this: Bouncing Bill does not believe in the God of the Bible - God who knows all things, and knows that languages change and adapt over time - He knew all this, and yet chose to write His Word in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, knowing it would need to be translated into other languages. God wasn't caught off guard with no pure Word to give the world.

 

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7Z:1-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Judge not, that ye be not judged.  2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7Z:1-4

I can see Jerry's point, BB. We're supposed to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God," and from some of your posts about the Bible, and the way you seem to be questioning God's ability to preserve his inspired Word, it makes people wonder. The Bible also tells us to judge RIGHTEOUS judgement....at least present both sides and not just your SEEMINGLY distorted viewpoint, please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

I can see Jerry's point, BB. We're supposed to "try the spirits to see whether they be of God," and from some of your posts about the Bible, and the way you seem to be questioning God's ability to preserve his inspired Word, it makes people wonder. The Bible also tells us to judge RIGHTEOUS judgement....at least present both sides and not just your SEEMINGLY distorted viewpoint, please!

I don't question God's ability. I am simply asking how does He do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I don't question God's ability. I am simply asking how does He do it?

We don't know everything God knows. He doesn't lay his plans for preserving his Word out in front of us except to tell us that not one jot or tittle will disappear. That's good enough for me. Our ways aren't His ways, and our thoughts aren't His thoughts. The closest we can come it trying to have the mind of Christ in our daily living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

We don't know everything God knows. He doesn't lay his plans for preserving his Word out in front of us except to tell us that not one jot or tittle will disappear. That's good enough for me. Our ways aren't His ways, and our thoughts aren't His thoughts. The closest we can come it trying to have the mind of Christ in our daily living.

Very true. But, does God use people in the preservation of his word such that people can understand his word regardless of the era in which the live?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
31 minutes ago, Bouncing Bill said:

Very true. But, does God use people in the preservation of his word such that people can understand his word regardless of the era in which the live?

Well, the answer to that should be self-evident in the fact that we have translations. And again, there is studying those translations, comparing them to the original content and context. I think you know all this already...at least you should. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

Well, the answer to that should be self-evident in the fact that we have translations. And again, there is studying those translations, comparing them to the original content and context. I think you know all this already...at least you should. 😉

Yes, I knew. Glad you answered as you did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was just thinking about this and realized some posters here are thinking backwards on the translation issue. It DOESN'T matter if some words are hard to translate from another language into English or be able to be translated word for word into another language - what matters is: Is God's Word able to be translated into those languages accurately? Languages develop over time - however, the three Bible languages are now dead languages (not modern Greek, but Koine Greek); therefore their meaning is static, unchanging. God - who is all knowing, who knows the end from the beginning - chose specific words when He used the Bible prophets to pen His Word. Regardless of how a newer language may have since developed (and how difficult it may or may not be to translate THAT language into another), is God's Word able to be translated INTO (not FROM) that language? That is the primary issue. If God cannot oversee an accurate translation of His Word into a receptor language, that's on God. If man created some words/phrases/ideas that are difficult to translate from a receptor language into another language, that doesn't matter. We are not referring to a Tribesman from (insert random name here) translating his written or spoken words into English or whatever other language you pick, we are determining whether God's preserved words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be translated into these receptor languages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
36 minutes ago, Jerry said:

I was just thinking about this and realized some posters here are thinking backwards on the translation issue. It DOESN'T matter if some words are hard to translate from another language into English or be able to be translated word for word into another language - what matters is: Is God's Word able to be translated into those languages accurately? Languages develop over time - however, the three Bible languages are now dead languages (not modern Greek, but Koine Greek); therefore their meaning is static, unchanging. God - who is all knowing, who knows the end from the beginning - chose specific words when He used the Bible prophets to pen His Word. Regardless of how a newer language may have since developed (and how difficult it may or may not be to translate THAT language into another), is God's Word able to be translated INTO (not FROM) that language? That is the primary issue. If God cannot oversee an accurate translation of His Word into a receptor language, that's on God. If man created some words/phrases/ideas that are difficult to translate from a receptor language into another language, that doesn't matter. We are not referring to a Tribesman from (insert random name here) translating his written or spoken words into English or whatever other language you pick, we are determining whether God's preserved words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek can be translated into these receptor languages?

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, SureWord said:

If those dead languages are "static" then why a new lexicon with new definitions every year?  

This is what happens when you think God cannot "inspire" a translation, you end up depending on men hopefully getting it right. 

I still haven't found a verse that says God cannot inspire a translation.

So, you believe in "double inspiration" instead of God being able to preserve his word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 9 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...