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.

Was the King James Bible itself inspired?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yeah, I'm a little hung up on the purified thing but I can see how that might be true. It seems to me that scripture is saying the Word is as pure as purified silver though. That's how I read it at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yeah, I'm a little hung up on the purified thing but I can see how that might be true. It seems to me that scripture is saying the Word is as pure as purified silver though. That's how I read it at least.


I'm not an expert on this kinda stuff, I just know the KJB is perfect and it's God's word, and that I do not need an understanding of the original languages to know what God said (I did take 1 year of Greek, but I've since forgot it all). How the KJB got there, I'm not sure.

But here's an idea when it comes to being purified seven times:

1. Hebrew.
2. Aramaic.
3. Greek.
4. Old Syriac.
5. Latin.
6. German.
7. English.

Seven English Translations:

1. Wycliffe's
2. Tyndale's
3. Coverdale's
4. Great
5. Geneva
6. Bishops
7. KJV Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Purified simply means free from error/impurity. I think the "seven times" equalling Bible versions is really pushing things. "Seven" is simply the number of perfection, so silver purified seven times would denote the most perfect and impurity-free silver possible, which is what God's Word is. No hidden meaning....pure means pure. It is not saying that the Word of God, at one time, was NOT pure. Its simply using a word picture to show how pure it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Purified simply means free from error/impurity. I think the "seven times" equalling Bible versions is really pushing things. "Seven" is simply the number of perfection, so silver purified seven times would denote the most perfect and impurity-free silver possible, which is what God's Word is. No hidden meaning....pure means pure. It is not saying that the Word of God, at one time, was NOT pure. Its simply using a word picture to show how pure it is.


:amen::thumb:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Purified simply means free from error/impurity. I think the "seven times" equalling Bible versions is really pushing things. "Seven" is simply the number of perfection, so silver purified seven times would denote the most perfect and impurity-free silver possible, which is what God's Word is. No hidden meaning....pure means pure. It is not saying that the Word of God, at one time, was NOT pure. Its simply using a word picture to show how pure it is.



It could very well be.

But it's an awefully big coincidence, doncha think? :bible:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It could very well be.

But it's an awefully big coincidence, doncha think? :bible:


Not really. Such a theory would seem to make the English Bible either the only preserved line or somehow special above others.

If not, then it would seem each language would have to have 7 Bible translations before they could have a perfect one too.

Of course none of this takes into account how this effects those Bibles translated into other languages after English. Nor does it factor in which base language Bible they translated from or whether they went with what manuscripts, both, or several of each.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

One can manipulate pretty much any number to create coincidences and call them "acts of God"....


A bit off topic but Dr. David Jeremiah pointed this out when he gave several names of those predicted to be the anti-christ over the years. Those doing the predicting would use various mathematical means to do so and if one means didn't give them the results they wanted they would us another! :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Not really. Such a theory would seem to make the English Bible either the only preserved line or somehow special above others.



First and foremost, I will readily admit that the "seven translations" thing it is just a theory to me. I do, however, personally believe that the perfect word of God today is found in English, just as at one time it was only found in Greek or Hebrew. This doesn't mean that the KJBs in other languages are corrupt and should not be used though!

When it comes to the Bible issue, it always comes down to comparisions in the end. I can speak, read, write, and translate in Melanesian Pigin having lived in Papua New Guinea for two years. In James 5:16, in our English KJB it says to "Confess your faults...". The Pigin KJB says to "Confess your sins...". There is a HUGE difference!

In the entire time I was there, I (nor any other KJVO Baptist that I know of) never went around trying to rip the Pigin KJB out of those people's hands. But I'm not going to stand there and say that it's the perfect word of God, when there is a HUGE difference in that verse. We're not talking about "thee's and thou's" there, that is a major doctrinal difference and that is a Catholic rendering of the verse.


If not, then it would seem each language would have to have 7 Bible translations before they could have a perfect one too.



Not really. If you believe that the KJB is the eventual fulfillment of that passage, then anything that is a exact translation of the English KJB is perfect as well.


Of course none of this takes into account how this effects those Bibles translated into other languages after English. Nor does it factor in which base language Bible they translated from or whether they went with what manuscripts, both, or several of each.



If someone goes back to the Greek to translate the Bible into a new language, they are basically reinventing the wheel. If you believe that God's perfect and preserved word is in English, why would you go back to the original languages when you have to contend with a ton of different manuscripts that all disagree with each other, not to mention a simpler language that means it could be translated incorrectly?

Like I said earlier, there are less words in Greek, so when you go from Greek to English you have multiple options to choose from. I translated the KJV Daniel from English to Pigin and had to endure the same process - in reverse! It was terrible at times trying to express in a simpler language than English the richness that we have in our Bible. I hope we all appreciate how blessed with are with our English KJB. Words like "sin", "iniquity", and "transgression" all have the same word in Pigin - but English they are three different words with three different definitions, though the definitions may overlap somewhat.

Greek and Hebrew are simpler languages than English, though they seem to be worship by modern day scholarship. Here's an example. The word "dulos" in Greek means servant or slave. Big difference between the two. If you believe that the English KJB is God's perfect word, why would you go back to the Greek when you were translating into a different language and maybe translate it slave when it is servant in the English KJB? If you translate it slave when the KJB says servant - does that now make the Enlish KJB no longer the word of God because you used a different word? Of course not! So what happens then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a couple of points of clarification from Rick S., please.

1. Your assertion that the Greek has less words than English. Upon what information is that predicated?

2. Your lack of assertion that Hebrew has more or less words than English. If that (the number of words available in a language) is a criterion for preservation/accuracy/validity why do you not mention it?

3. Your testimony that you had difficulty in translating the Bible from KJ English to Pidgin. Do you assert that you were or were not directly inspired as you did this work? I am unable to determine from the totality of your posts if you are declaring that the KJ was inspired in English and everything else, including your Pidgin work is inferior, or if you are declaring something else?

I'd like to read your answers to have a better understanding of what you are trying to communicate and upon what your point of view is reliant before commenting further.

Edited by 4everHis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just a couple of points of clarification from Rick S., please.

1. Your assertion that the Greek has less words than English. Upon what information is that predicated?



I learned it in Bible School, sorry, no citations off hand here. If I have time after I get home from work tonight, around 12:30, I'll see if I can find something for you.


2. Your lack of assertion that Hebrew has more or less words than English. If that (the number of words available in a language) is a criterion for preservation/accuracy/validity why do you not mention it?



The number of words in a language is not criteria for preservation/accuracy/validity.

The promise of God is:

Prov. 12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
[7] Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Let me ask you a question, where are these words?



3. Your testimony that you had difficulty in translating the Bible from KJ English to Pidgin. Do you assert that you were or were not directly inspired as you did this work? I am unable to determine from the totality of your posts if you are declaring that the KJ was inspired in English and everything else, including your Pidgin work is inferior, or if you are declaring something else?

I'd like to read your answers to have a better understanding of what you are trying to communicate and upon what your point of view is reliant before commenting further.



I don't believe I was inspired as I did that work. I prayed a lot, and I believe the Lord helped me, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I was inspired in the sense that you are talking about.

As to whether or not the King James is inspired, I don't know. But I believe it is the perfect word of God, and until someone can produce a contradiction from an original document (which there are none) I will continue to believe it is based upon Ps. 12:6-7.

People pratically worship the Greek and anyone who can use a Lexicon. Bible study has turned into Greek study.

Did you know that Phileo and Agape mean the same exact thing? It's a myth that they are separate types of love. Now, at the same time, people try to bunch the word "love" in as being the same thing as "charity". Did you know that they are different?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In Gail Riplinger's Book, "The Language of the King James Bible" on chapter six paragraph one she says that the English language contains around 1 millions words, and that English dictionaries usually contain around 500,000.

I'll get back with you on how many words are in first century Greek.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now, at the same time, people try to bunch the word "love" in as being the same thing as "charity". Did you know that they are different?


I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. Both of these words have multiple meanings and among those there is overlap. Properly used, there can be interchange but they can most certainly be improperly interchanged. If this is what you are speaking of, as regards MVs, for example, which place the word "love" in First Corinthians 13 rather than the word "charity" as the KJB does, then most often this is taken wrongly and often preached wrongly.

Ok, no point me speculating, I'll await your expounding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. Both of these words have multiple meanings and among those there is overlap. Properly used, there can be interchange but they can most certainly be improperly interchanged. If this is what you are speaking of, as regards MVs, for example, which place the word "love" in First Corinthians 13 rather than the word "charity" as the KJB does, then most often this is taken wrongly and often preached wrongly.

Ok, no point me speculating, I'll await your expounding.


My overall point is this:

Modern Bible teachers and preachers, usually liberal non-IFB ones, bloviate needlessly about the nuances, richness, and greatness of the "original Greek" (insert a rolling of the "r" sound). Modern "scholars" cannot go fifteen minutes without doing this or without expounding upon a verse by going back to the Greek instead of DEEPER into their Bible. The idea of the superiority of the original languages is POUNDED into the minds of people to the point that they feel inadequate and can't really know the deep truth of the scriptures without knowing Greek.... or seeking a man.

This was the standard operating procedure of the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages. Get the people to rely on MEN for the truth, because the common people could not possibly interpret the scriptures on their own. Thank God for William Tyndale who did something about it and said, "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

Christians do not need a man to know the deepness and the richness of the truth of God's word. They can find it in their English Bible. And by cross referencing words in English to other passages they can find a lot more truth and richness then by delving into the original languages, and that way they learn their Bible not Greek. If a word or thought is hard to understand, looking at how the word is used in other passages is the best way to understand it. But this is not what is taught, either directly or indirectly by modern Christian leaders.

That's the praticle aspect of where I'm coming from on this. On the technical side, as I said before, there are many cases where a lone Greek word can have several different English words it could be interpreted into. Hence, going back to the Greek could lead to a false interpretation, but studying the verse according to what other verses in your Bible says will certainly not do that.

Sure, there are a couple Greek words that are kind of interesting, one such example would be "farmicah" - it's where we get the word pharmacy from and that word is used in Revelation in correlation with the unrepentant. You could say they're all hooked on drugs. On the other hand, you could look up the phrase "son of perdition" in the Bible and find out it is only used for two people. The Antichrist, and Judas Iscariot. Then you could speculate that like John the Baptist came in the "spirit and power" of Elijah, perhaps the Antichrist will be similar to Judas Iscariot. You won't find that in the Greek. I have no prOBlem with people using a dictionary, a modern version, a commentary, or a Greek lexicon - but the first choice in interpreting scripture should ALWAYS be other scripture passages, and by and large with modern Christianity it is not.

On to love and charity. Yes, the definitions do overlap, just like fornication and adultery overlap, but they are two different things. You hear modern Bible scholars expound upon the richness of the Greek and about phileo and agape are two separate types of love (which is a lie, they are the same, and I can prove that by scripture if anyone wants me to), but you NEVER hear them talking about how "love" and "charity" are two separate types of love.

I love my wife. I can say it all day long, but putting that love into pratice is what makes a difference. What Paul is saying is unless you put love into pratice, it's worthless. These modern Bibles destroy that meaning by changing the word "charity" to "love" - they are not the same. Charity is love in action. You can say you love the Bible - and you can REALLY ACTUALLY love your Bible, but if you never study it (putting that love into action), it's pointless. You can truely love your kids, but if you never put it into pratice your love is worthless. That's another "nugget" you won't find in the Greek. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint. No need to look up the amount of words. I already am in possession of the answer, so please get some much needed rest! :)

I agree with Bro. Matt on the idea of inspiration and preservation.

I don't want to do or to say something that makes you feel put upon. (I read another thread before getting to this one and saw that you might be feeling less than welcomed.) I see that you have come for fellowship and I take you at your word.

Have a great day and may God bless all of the midweek services represented on this board!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I think I have a better understanding of your viewpoint. No need to look up the amount of words. I already am in possession of the answer, so please get some much needed rest! :)

I agree with Bro. Matt on the idea of inspiration and preservation.

I don't want to do or to say something that makes you feel put upon. (I read another thread before getting to this one and saw that you might be feeling less than welcomed.) I see that you have come for fellowship and I take you at your word.

Have a great day and may God bless all of the midweek services represented on this board!


Thank you for your very kind words, I appreciate the sentiment.

I don't mind continuing the discussion, I encourage it. In my mind, it is a friendly discussion not an argument, I'm not trying to play bait and switch with anyone here; I'm simply putting forth what I believe on the subject. If it turns into a stereotypical "You're only saying that because you're a...", then I have better things to do then reason with the unreasonable. I hate arguments, if I'm going to argue it had better be with a Mormon, Catholic, or JW - not a fellow Bible Believer. We're only discussing particulars here.

I spoke to my old Greek teacher (I took a year of Greek in Bible college and hated it :)) last night on the phone, and he reiterated my sentiments about the number of words. My Greek grammar book didn't list the number of words, but Strong's concordance said there are about 6,000 different words in the Greek New Testament. Riplinger's book put the number of English words at 8,000, showing more clarity and variety in English than Greek.

As far as the comparison between the two languages, I'm borrowing his Greek Lexicon tonight so that will show how many words are in first century Greek. What is spoken today is not what the non extant originals were written in.

Like I said earlier, this is only one side of the coin, the technical side. The practical side involves history, faith, and authority.

Oh, and I don't work tonight or tomorrow night. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My overall point is this:

Modern Bible teachers and preachers, usually liberal non-IFB ones, bloviate needlessly about the nuances, richness, and greatness of the "original Greek" (insert a rolling of the "r" sound). Modern "scholars" cannot go fifteen minutes without doing this or without expounding upon a verse by going back to the Greek instead of DEEPER into their Bible. The idea of the superiority of the original languages is POUNDED into the minds of people to the point that they feel inadequate and can't really know the deep truth of the scriptures without knowing Greek.... or seeking a man.

This was the standard operating procedure of the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages. Get the people to rely on MEN for the truth, because the common people could not possibly interpret the scriptures on their own. Thank God for William Tyndale who did something about it and said, "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!"

Christians do not need a man to know the deepness and the richness of the truth of God's word. They can find it in their English Bible. And by cross referencing words in English to other passages they can find a lot more truth and richness then by delving into the original languages, and that way they learn their Bible not Greek. If a word or thought is hard to understand, looking at how the word is used in other passages is the best way to understand it. But this is not what is taught, either directly or indirectly by modern Christian leaders.

That's the praticle aspect of where I'm coming from on this. On the technical side, as I said before, there are many cases where a lone Greek word can have several different English words it could be interpreted into. Hence, going back to the Greek could lead to a false interpretation, but studying the verse according to what other verses in your Bible says will certainly not do that.

Sure, there are a couple Greek words that are kind of interesting, one such example would be "farmicah" - it's where we get the word pharmacy from and that word is used in Revelation in correlation with the unrepentant. You could say they're all hooked on drugs. On the other hand, you could look up the phrase "son of perdition" in the Bible and find out it is only used for two people. The Antichrist, and Judas Iscariot. Then you could speculate that like John the Baptist came in the "spirit and power" of Elijah, perhaps the Antichrist will be similar to Judas Iscariot. You won't find that in the Greek. I have no prOBlem with people using a dictionary, a modern version, a commentary, or a Greek lexicon - but the first choice in interpreting scripture should ALWAYS be other scripture passages, and by and large with modern Christianity it is not.

On to love and charity. Yes, the definitions do overlap, just like fornication and adultery overlap, but they are two different things. You hear modern Bible scholars expound upon the richness of the Greek and about phileo and agape are two separate types of love (which is a lie, they are the same, and I can prove that by scripture if anyone wants me to), but you NEVER hear them talking about how "love" and "charity" are two separate types of love.

I love my wife. I can say it all day long, but putting that love into pratice is what makes a difference. What Paul is saying is unless you put love into pratice, it's worthless. These modern Bibles destroy that meaning by changing the word "charity" to "love" - they are not the same. Charity is love in action. You can say you love the Bible - and you can REALLY ACTUALLY love your Bible, but if you never study it (putting that love into action), it's pointless. You can truely love your kids, but if you never put it into pratice your love is worthless. That's another "nugget" you won't find in the Greek.


:thumb: Very clear and I'm right there with ya!

Scripture interpretting Scripture with the guidance of the Holy Ghost! :thumb:

I've heard, read and encountered those who get rather big-headed with their "knowledge" of Greek and they love to correct the Bible they are using; whether the KJB or an MV. Not all are big-headed, but even those who are not often fall into the correcting area. I can't count the number of times I've heard or read a pastor commenting on a verse, turning to the Greek and then proclaiming the verse could have, should have been better translated thus and thus. In one breath they are correcting the Scriptures and proclaiming themselves to be greater authorities than the translators of the Bible in his hands.

Absolutely a very great difference between charity (love in action) and the generic love used in MVs. Most often the term love in First Corinthians 13 is thought of or even taught as the feely type of love. Some even view such akin to the hippy concept of love where they would give flowers to folks and try to smile all day and speak pleasant words of love. (where's the barfy smilie!)

Our love is not to be a mushy, gushy, feely love but a love of action; as the KJB imparts by using the word charity rather than love. Faith without works is dead. Love without action is mush. :icon_mrgreen:

Great post. Thanks for taking the time on that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • 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...