Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I hope you know it isn’t about “winning” it is about the truth.Okay, you win...
I hope you know it isn’t about “winning” it is about the truth.Okay, you win...
I had a conversation with a preacher who preached we are “obtained”by the blood of Jesus( I forget what translation he used) instead of we are “purchased” by the blood of Jesus. Changing “purchased” to o” obtained” by the translators destroys the flow, context, the types,and truth of scripture. I can obtain something without shedding my blood to get it. I have zero confidence in modern translations based on their changing God’s word for their personal agendas,declined morals in society, and the gospel changed from what Jesus taught to mean whatever modern society thinks it should be.
I was thinking earlier, what if you wanted to write a Translation for a Nation that uses the word 'wishes' for the word 'Wills'? This is really half of what's going on; the KJV was great for it's original society. My home Reformed Baptist Church used the NIV, and the Preacher was always having to explain the words he used from it; don't all good Preachers do this because of the original languages? He eventually changed to the ESV; did he do this because he's a Calvinist, or because he could spend less time explaining the words in it?Yeah. Like the KJV changed leaders to rulers. Or oversight to rule.
Whether you realize this or not, the decline of morals in society happened a very long time ago. It is witness in Romans 1. There are NONE righteous. King James is include in that fact.
Trying to add morals to sinners is like a leopard changing his spots.
I had a conversation with a preacher who preached we are “obtained”by the blood of Jesus( I forget what translation he used) instead of we are “purchased” by the blood of Jesus.
Changing “purchased” to o” obtained” by the translators destroys the flow, context, the types,and truth of scripture.
I can obtain something without shedding my blood to get it.
I have zero confidence in modern translations based on their changing God’s word for their personal agendas,
declined morals in society,
and the gospel changed from what Jesus taught to mean whatever modern society thinks it should be.
Yeah. Like the KJV changed leaders to rulers. Or oversight to rule.
The Celebration Hymnal has a song in it that says "whosoever means even me." I've seen elders who didn't understand what the KJV was saying.Once again, the reason you don't like them is NOT because they are allegedly "corrupted" (they aren't), but because the KJV is sufficiently vague as to allow either intepretation, while the modern translations (and the original Greek) are not.
Do you even understand what repentance means ?The Celebration Hymnal has a song in it that says "whosoever means even me." I've seen elders who didn't understand what the KJV was saying.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Somebody asked him what that meant. He said "well, I guess you don't have to repent."
The New King James straightens it out:
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Verse 29 follows verse 28
Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they (Jews) are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
As Robertson's Word Pictures says it:
to change one’s mind. God is not sorry for his gifts to and calling of the Jews
For 21st century, English speaking Americans to stick with the archaic King James, is nuts.
Romans 11:29 simply means God is not going to change His mind. Since repentance means to change your direction and go the direction God requires. So the gifts and calling of God will not change. You’re welcome.The Celebration Hymnal has a song in it that says "whosoever means even me." I've seen elders who didn't understand what the KJV was saying.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Somebody asked him what that meant. He said "well, I guess you don't have to repent."
The New King James straightens it out:
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
Verse 29 follows verse 28
Rom 11:28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they (Jews) are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
As Robertson's Word Pictures says it:
to change one’s mind. God is not sorry for his gifts to and calling of the Jews
For 21st century, English speaking Americans to stick with the archaic King James, is nuts.
The Celebration Hymnal has a song in it that says "whosoever means even me." I've seen elders who didn't understand what the KJV was saying.
Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Somebody asked him what that meant. He said "well, I guess you don't have to repent."
For 21st century, English speaking Americans to stick with the archaic King James, is nuts.
What I see is that you are taking Calvinism and imposing it on the verse. There is nothing in the verse itsself that speaks of the "come" being irresitible. It is an invitation, not a court order.The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.
Revelation 22:17 NIV
Revelation 22:17
Revelation 22:17 - The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water orevelation.bible
I think the Verse is a Valediction for the Book of Revelation, and meant for John's contemporaries; and for us. When the Spirit and the Bride say to us "Come", this is Irresistible Grace. When the one who answers this Effectual Call comes, then they say to us "Come"; this Call is resistible. Those who are thirsty and wish to take the Free Gift, have already been Effectually "Graced" by God; and through their Freedom of Will they shall Come...
Yes, you are right. But studying the Bible lets you know that coming is only from a new heart and new Spirit.What I see is that you are taking Calvinism and imposing it on the verse. There is nothing in the verse itsself that speaks of the "come" being irresitible. It is an invitation, not a court order.
Rev. 22:17 Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν, Ἔρχου.o καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω, Ἔρχου.p καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω, ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.
These are all singular participles:
ὁ ἀκούων - "the one who hears", or "the one hearing";
ὁ διψῶν - "the one who thirsts", or "the one thirsting";
ὁ θέλων - "the one who wills/wishes", or "the one willing/wishing"
I would say I'm not imposing Calvinism on the Verse buddy, what I am doing is discussing Systematic Theology; I whole-heartedly agree with the Verse. Please believe me when I say the Verse is a true invitation to All...What I see is that you are taking Calvinism and imposing it on the verse. There is nothing in the verse itsself that speaks of the "come" being irresitible. It is an invitation, not a court order.
The Bride says "come." We are commanding unbelievers?Yes, you are right. But studying the Bible lets you know that coming is only from a new heart and new Spirit.
I think if God says "come' doesn't that kind of make it a commandment?
Eze 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
Are you now going to say that what God says above, only happens when somebody asks for it?
When you ask for it "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you."
When you ask for it "I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."
If your systematic Theology allows you to alter the intent or meaning of a verse to fit into the accepted framework, then that systematic is being used inaccurately.I would say I'm not imposing Calvinism on the Verse buddy, what I am doing is discussing Systematic Theology; I whole-heartedly agree with the Verse. Please believe me when I say the Verse is a true invitation to All...
However, I am talking about what Systematic Theology says about the Verse. The Verse is not molested...
I agree, a Systematic Theology cannot change the meaning of any Verse; Scripture is carved in stone, Sola Scriptura...If your systematic Theology allows you to alter the intent or meaning of a verse to fit into the accepted framework, then that systematic is being used inaccurately.
Racking them up . . .Where does that say, "each and every individual"?
I don't see it.
I have always thought that the Father was speaking thru the bush.I agree, a Systematic Theology cannot change the meaning of any Verse; Scripture is carved in stone, Sola Scriptura...
What Systematic Theology CAN do is help you understand every Verse. For instance, the LORD was in the burning bush; this is the Logos of God, although the Verse doesn't say it. Let me ask you; is the LORD who was in the burning bush the Son of God or the Father? You probably say the Son; and probably every knowledgeable Lurker does too. If you like, I can give you and the Lurkers more examples of Systematic Theology teaching us about Verses, resulting in an Orthodox Truth. This is another example of me having to teach the Basics when I shouldn't have to 😞
So do you agree that even you read a Systematic Theology into the Verse?
you said two opposing things as if they were the same thoughtI agree, a Systematic Theology cannot change the meaning of any Verse; Scripture is carved in stone, Sola Scriptura...
What Systematic Theology CAN do is help you understand every Verse. For instance, the LORD was in the burning bush; this is the Logos of God, although the Verse doesn't say it. Let me ask you; is the LORD who was in the burning bush the Son of God or the Father? You probably say the Son; and probably every knowledgeable Lurker does too. If you like, I can give you and the Lurkers more examples of Systematic Theology teaching us about Verses, resulting in an Orthodox Truth. This is another example of me having to teach the Basics when I shouldn't have to 😞
So do you agree that even you read a Systematic Theology into the Verse?
Thanks for the acknowledgment, I'll back off...I have always thought that the Father was speaking thru the bush.
And yes absolutely, even if I have not articulated my personal systematic (my hermeneutic) I know i have developed my own way of understanding the Word. My first step is pray.
Yes, that's because All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. This means that let's say John 1:1 is good for the Doctrine of Matthew 1:18. If a Verse is Bad for the Doctrine of another Verse, the Doctrine is false and actually is Dogma instead. This is how Systematic Theology is supposed to work. You and I agree that Matt 1:18 and John 1:1 are Good for the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union; but Jews and Muslims don't. They have to say the Verses are invalid; I do not do that. Valid Verses mean Jesus is the GodMan...you said two opposing things as if they were the same thought
1. Scripture is carved in stone
2. Systematic Theology cannot change the meaning
The first is looking at the Word for what it exactly says, minus interpretation
The second is about interpretation