MS wrote: B. I would agree with most of your thoughts. I use in my own personal study the AV and find it to be the best translation bar none. My point in posting is that there are a growing number of KJV elitists who border on idolatry of this version and would give the impression that one could not possibly be a saved individual if they owned and read another version. Very immature thinking and adding to the gospel of free and sovereign grace on their part.
Certainly there is a tangible risk attached to the preaching relying on modern versions, which risk comes evident to the asidous AV reader when listening to such sermons.
Yet, by large, AV preachers definitely need to give more study time to their sermons to regain the freshness and depth of the word regularly missed in their addresses.
Surely, the KJO may border a cult like heresy with their wrong understanding, but the free lance modern version user risks the panacea dream like delusion of a vast sea of approximations.
Mike wrote: The cows and pigs are still out there. They haven't just disappeared. It doesn't work that way in farming. There is no shortage. There are people willing to work. Let them work. The sick can stay home, just like in real life. How much more manufacturered crisis will be blamed on a virus?
True, but often gaps in the logistics of production or manufacturing due to the self isolation of individuals can weaken, delay or break the chain of normal supply.
MS wrote: I listen to two teachers of Godâ€™s Word who teach from the ESV and NKJV, I have been blessed and have learned more from them than others who strictly use the AV.đź¤·â€Ťâ™€ď¸Ź
This might be the case of particular exhortations, addresses or even sermons where speakers ride on a Biblical heritage of several centuries using the jargon derived from it.
However, when judging a ministry as a whole, this 'premise' might prove faulty.
As a norm, integrity is defined by wholesomeness, this meaning inclusion of accurate detail for every phrase, intent, and biblical term. This is what the AV, though not 'perfect', represents in its renderings.
Unprofitable, no need to resort to covert insult, or personal harassment, but sadly, and as it has been *always* typical with you in the past, it appears you cannot end a discussion without it, if you cannot have it your way. How sad and shameful, however it seems it makes you feel better.
Sad also that you seem to miss out to identify poor patterns of logic.
Trust you have heard this phrase, 'Wouldn't touch with a barge-pole': boy, your practice is so distasteful that it would help to follow Christ's wise example of Luke 23:9
Kind regards, John. Thanks for endearing to be a gentleman
Nick wrote: 1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land here in the United States. What is to be done when someone in governmental position breaks the law?
2. Eric from NC wote The Bible says that we should honor God first. He should take precedence over man's judgement. It says, If possible, live peaceably with all men. It's not peaceable to shut down churches. It says, Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together. This is what the Bible says. The judges are wrong.
Some Americans treat their constitution as if were the Bible itself.
As good as it is to have legal guarantees in place for freedom of speech, association and worship as included in the text of the American constitution, such work as 'guidelines'.
If emergencies suggest *temporal* adjustment for the sake of the immediate good of the country and fellow citizens, it is not a matter of breaking the law, or being unconstitutional, but of being sensible, and honouring temporal measures or instructions.
When *'Congress'* makes permanent laws contradicting bible truth, that will be the time to sound the alarm.
See the text, " *Congress shall make no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
John UK wrote: Regarding the apostasy of the churches, have a think about this: If Jesus could write to seven churches in the 1st century and find plenty to castigate them for, do you not think that if wrote a letter to our churches in the 21st century he would also find plenty to tell us about that we are doing wrong?
US Please, use valid logic in interpreting intend. My response to QC was to avoid unnecessary repetition of what had been already stated.
People like yourself relying on internet sources heavily to defend presuposed assumptions without practical insight of correlating issues of history, tend to err at the expence of biblical truth. Only Scriptures can be depended upon without error and that only of its original underlying uncorrupted texts.
John UK wrote: 1. There will always be those who have no intention of discussing in a friendly fashion.
2. ... get to grips with what scripture teaches us. If that means jettisoning some things we have been brainwashed with, so be it.
3. Mike, the verb is stauroo (which has a line above the second o). The noun is stauro. In the KJV we have 'crucified' and 'cross', and that is what we have been fed with for centuries. But how will you translate these Greek words?
1. Thanks, John, however, 'friendly' discussion is only the 'cosmetic' side of the whole matter. The true issue is integrity of thought and reasoning which follows after valid patterns of logic, without guile, misrepresentation, wrong asumptions, or twisted presumptions. This shows in this passage by contrasting 'chaste' versus 'corrupted'
"I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: ... that I may present you as a 'chaste' virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
4. Mike, the brutal execution by 'hanging' had not the comfort of any in mind. The hanging on a pole could include nailing stretched arms over the head or back.
John UK wrote: Doc, in a game of football there are goal posts at each end of the pitch. Let us say that the goal is argument 1, and if you want to counter the argument, you have to kick the ball between the goal posts. But you realise that you have already lost the argument, and you cannot counter it, so there is only one thing left to do. You create a false argument (argument 2), which you know you can counter successfully, which means that you have to move the goal posts. It's a bit like creating a strawman, which no-one is arguing for. Thusly, it is dishonest, and does not make for good, Christian discussion.
Common practice here. Good you took the time to spell it out as it is. After submitting strong evidence for a case, usually the straw men turn up in all sorts of shapes or colours as surviving kits for those resisting truth, which reality convince us that not all deserve to hear or to know facts, as not only these are dismembered apart but then follow after to shame the messenger. As you point out, " Thusly, it is dishonest" and it "does not make for good, Christian discussion" to say the least.
Dr. Tim wrote: Mrs. McCausland, I have not used any dishonesty, and you are a raging liar if you say that I have. As to â€śmoving the post,â€ť I assume that is a British idiomatic expression, and I donâ€™t know what it means.
Sorry if there is a misunderstanding, but no one is denying that Jesus was nailed to a literal 'cross', we are clarifying the term.
Thanks for the quote from Vines Complete Expository Dictionary John. The facts are true and go along the broad reading of history, nothing new.
QC Perhaps you should re-read the posts below and read history broadly rather than depend on private understanding or on a single opinionated source.
Dr. Tim wrote: â€śAbout this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a CROSS...â€ť â€”Flavius Josephus
Sir, the following below comes out of respect for truth rather than concern for individuals.
Did Josephus speak or write in English? If not who translated him and when? Modern or RC translators would repeat the Vulgate doing failing to identify the precise wording, but rather rendering a convenient politically correct equivalent satisfactory to a current agenda or context at the risk of accuracy. What is the original word for 'cross' in the original writing?
For your convenience, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=staurw%3D%7C&la=greek&can=staurw%3D%7C0&prior=h(mi=n
As John has pointed out, it appears that some typically repeat poor practice when engaged in personal investigations.
Dr. Tim wrote: â€ś We owe all to Jesus crucified. What is your life, my brethren, but the cross? Whence comes the bread of your soul but from the cross? What is your joy but the cross? What is your delight, what is your heaven, but the Blessed One, once crucified for you, who ever lives to make intercession for you?â€ť Silly Spurgeon, getting his theology from YouTube!
Sir, sarcasm apart, what Bible believers mean by the term 'the cross', for lack of another more precise term nominating Jesus' work of redemption, is not exactly what historical christiandom has taken this term for during many centuries of apostasy.
As the names for the children of God have varied through the passing of time, from disciples, believers, saints, Christians, born again, etc..., so his accomplishment under the predetermined Council of God could be termed by different terms as his Work, his redemption, his betrayal, his sufferings, his sacrifice, his impalement, the giving of himself, his lifting up, or his eternal offering unto God by the Spirit of truth. Any of this would entirely describe what Spurgeon had in mind when using 'the cross' , which franckly is a convenient term in the evangelical jargon we know, though to the unsaved means nothing.
Surely the issues you mention John, are worthy of consideration and even of further investigation.
True, there are many passages which content runs over our heads as water runs the back of a duck.
Here a some considering the theme of piercing. Take care
"... the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."
"I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, ... that the scripture should be fulfilled ... They shall look on him whom they pierced."
"Behold, he comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him"
Carol wrote: â€śExperience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then they become necessary.At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished.â€ť J.C. Ryle.
A true observation that has proved the test of time.
Mike, regretfully, when mocking unbelief is excluded, spiritual understanding becomes helpful
John, it is interesting how the disciples linked Christ's execution to the OT death penalty by hanging on a tree.
For instance, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree."
Or "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree"
Saying that however, when the rendering of 'crucified' appears in modern translations, the stauros word behind this term points to the sense of impaling, say hanging a human by piercing, not necessarily by ropes.
Prisoners of war or people charged with treason were executed by hanging on a tree or pole in old times. We can see in Scriptures divers cases as that, for instance the baker in Joseph's dungeon.
From wikipedia, Impaling as used in Babylonia and the Neo-Assyrian Empire as early as the 18th century BC. meant the torture or killing by penetration of a human by a piercing object such as a stake, pole, spear, or hook, often by the complete or partial perforation of the torso.
With all the above in mind, we might gather that Christ's death gets a deeper theological sense than the mere RC melodramatic scene of a crucifixion.
A caution about quoting early writings, some sadly resort to as proof for a discussion. They often come subject to current bias in translation and editing.
Adriel wrote: The reason why the cross has become a "graven image" is because of its association with the Death of Christ the Son of God.
Iconography is ... another big idolatrous practice of the papists. This too has been censured by true Christians in history.
... the cross is a graven image in the religious idolatry of many in churches across the world. Just as icons ...
Is. 44:9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity ... that is profitable for nothing?
John UK wrote The stauros is the real thing; the cross is an invention of man.
Thank you, Adriel, yours is a sound reformed approach.
The magical Egyptian sign for life made of a cross with a loop on top might be an antecendent of the 'Christian cross'.
The sign of the cross became through history a "graven image" of the apostate church, infiltrating the global church and present undiscerning evangelical settings via the Vulgate translation which rendered stauros as crux, crucem or crucis, -all different declensions of the word cross in Latin which alters the word endings to show grammatical case, number and gender- instead of rendering an specific term for stauros.
From there subtly and sadly it made its way into modern English translations from Tyndale.