Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
I hope you know it isn’t about “winning” it is about the truth.
christ_undivided
Well-known member
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.
ReverendRV
Well-known member
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?
Last edited:
Theo1689
Well-known member
I think I found the verse you're alluding to, and as usual, your conclusions are 100% wrong.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (KJV)
Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,5 which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)
The Greek term is "peripoieo", and means,
1. to make secure for oneself, save/preserve (for oneself)
2. to gain possession of someth., acquire, obtain, gain for oneself
3. to effect some circumstance, bring (about)
So not only is "obtained" a perfectly accurate translation, but it could be argued that the KJV is corrupt with "purchased", since that's not the definition.
If Peter wanted to convey the concept of "purchase", he should have used "agorazo".
Not at all.
It does NOT "destroy the flow", unless your TRADITION makes you used to the KJV.
It does NOT "destroy the context".
It does NOT "destroy the truth of Scripture".
There is NO user of modern translations who would read the text and deny the atonement, since it says they were "obtained with his own blood".
Then there is no problem, since all modern translations have, "With his own blood".
I deny your claim to be able to read minds.
I deny your claim to be able to read minds.
I deny your claim to be able to read minds.
Theo1689
Well-known member
KJV-only's don't understand the concept of "synonyms".
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.
Leatherneck0311
Well-known member
Do you even understand what repentance means ?
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.
Theo1689
Well-known member
Yep... There's also a Christian song called "The Whippoorwill Song", which has some REALLY bad theology in it:
"I own the cattle on a thousand hills;
I write the music for the whippoorwills,
Control the planets with their rocks and rills,
But give you freedom to use your own will.
And if you want Me to, I'll make you whole;
I'll only do it though if you say so.
I'll never force you for I love you so;
I give you freedom; is it yes or no?"
That's where good word studies come in, since the word there isn't the same as the "metanoia" translated "repentance" when directed at sinners.
Yep.
Even the KJV translators recognized the need for modernized translations over the years.
Alexander the adequate
Well-known member
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.
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."
Theo1689
Well-known member
I forgot to point out something rather important:
John 3:16 - "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων" - "whosoever believeth"
Rev. 22:17 - "ὁ θέλων" - "the one willing"
John 3:16 has "pas" ("each", "every") preceding the participle.
None of the participles in Rev. 22:17 have "pas" to justify "whosoever".
ReverendRV
Well-known member
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...
Alexander the adequate
Well-known member
The Bride says "come." We are commanding unbelievers?
The form of the verb is a command, and I don't know what would be the grammatical term for this kind of command. But we see this form in English often, and I assume it is correctly translating the Hebrew and the Greek where it appears.
"Come see the show"
"Come study for free"
"Come listen to me"
These above are a different form than these commands below:
"Surrender or die"
"Do not touch"
"Go home."
After writing this, I decided to research a little and in a short time I found something which we all know, but maybe could not articulate.The command or imperative verb form has 5 main uses.
to give orders - Drive slowly
to instruct - Mix in one egg
to warn - Stay away from edge
to encourage - Live long and prosper
to invite - Come see me
When the Spirit and the Bride say, "Come" it is an invitation
Alexander the adequate
Well-known member
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.
ReverendRV
Well-known member
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?
Last edited:
Exeter
Active member
Racking them up . . .
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness to testify about the Light, so that through him everyone might believe.
Joh 1:9 The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.
Eph 3:8-9 Though I am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, (9) and to illuminate for everyone the stewardship of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone—
1Ti 2:3-4 This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (6) who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony that was given at just the right time.
1Ti 4:10 To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, and especially of those who believe.
Tit 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
Alexander the adequate
Well-known member
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.
Alexander the adequate
Well-known member
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
Last edited:
ReverendRV
Well-known member
Thanks for the acknowledgment, I'll back off...
ReverendRV
Well-known member
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...
So when it comes to you and I disagreeing about Verses, something like that is going on; we're not allowing some Verses to be Good for Doctrine...
Last edited: