1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Christ's body, broken for you

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by BrianT, Dec 14, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 6
  1. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they were. To do things like:

    - indicate where the meaning is questionable
    - to admonish a reader to seek further, rather than conclude or dogmatize upon something peremptorily
    - indicate where the Spirit of God left things questionable
    - to add profitability to scripture by supplimenting the sense *via diversity*
    - to give the *wise* their liberty in judgment in *differences of readings* - both in how to translate something, AND what to translate.

    "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

    "doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

    "For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

    "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

    "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

    Yes, they did. Here are the NT ones I found:

    - on Matt 1:11 - "Some read, Josias begat Jakim, and Jakim begat Jechonias."
    - on Matt 26:26 - "Many Greek copies have, gave thanks"
    - on Luke 10:22 - "Many ancient copies add these words, And turning to his Disciples he said."
    - on Luke 17:36 - "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."
    - on Acts 25:6 - "Or, as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days."
    - on 1 Cor 15:31 - "Some read, our"
    - on Eph 6:9 - "Some read, both your, and their master"
    - on James 2:18 - "Some copies read, by thy works"
    - on 1 Pet 2:21 - "Some read, for you"
    - on 2 Pet 2:2 - "Or, lascivious ways, as some copies read."
    - on 2 Pet 2:11 - "Some read against themselves"
    - on 2 Pet 2:18 - "Or, for a little, or a while, as some read"
    - on 2 John 1:8 - "Or, gained. Some copies read, which ye have gained, but that ye receive, etc."
     
    #21 BrianT, Dec 15, 2002
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,399
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Little Jewish illustration. It is the BREAD that is "broken".

    At the Passover there are three pieces of matzoh on the plate. The middle piece is broken, then part of it is buried (hidden behind pillows usually). It is later "discovered" by the youngest child and eaten as the "dessert".

    Picture of Christ (2nd person of Triune godhead) who is "broken", buried, then revealed and becomes the dessert.

    THAT is the piece Jesus used to say "This is my body."
     
    #22 Dr. Bob, Dec 15, 2002
  3. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    BrainT said, "Really? Were you there looking over Paul's shoulder? How do you know he didn't write "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me"?

    No we weren't there, but God gave us his Word for us to believe by faith that what the Bible says is true. Believe it or not.

    Pastor Bob said, "How comforting it is to sit down and read the Word of God without having doubts or questions regarding it's authority."

    Amen brother, your right, it is comforting.

    Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

    Psalms 119:140  Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

    John 17:17  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

    Praise God for His Word.
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
    #23 RaptureReady, Dec 15, 2002
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Broken... it can have more than one meaning and even be used in a figure of speech.

    Like: "You broke my heart". It doesn't mean it's lying on the floor in several pieces.

    HankD
     
    #24 HankD, Dec 16, 2002
  5. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, in English, "broken" has a wide range of meaning. But in Greek, the word used here ("klao") is *only* used of bread in the NT, and *only* in the sense of completely tearing into *separate* pieces. It does not mean bruised or pierced. It does not mean sorrowful. It does not mean cease to function. It only means one item ripped into more than one separate piece. It does not carry the same range of meaning it does in English.

    Christ's body was not "broken" in the same way that bread is broken, and if it was, the comparison to the Passover lamb is destroyed.

    Dr. Bob, your comments about matzoh are very interesting. Is the second piece torn into more than one piece?

    Homebound, I agree, but this discussion is about which reading was originally God's word. It is possible that the NASB's reading is correct, and the KJV's is the one that has been added to.

    BTW, I've noticed that no one on this thread, not even those who are KJV-only, have said the NASB's reading is wrong here. Is there anyone who believes it is?
     
    #25 BrianT, Dec 16, 2002
  6. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I for one believe the NASB is wrong because I hold all faith in the King James Bible.
     
    #26 RaptureReady, Dec 16, 2002
  7. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    What specifically is wrong about the NASB's reading here?
     
    #27 BrianT, Dec 16, 2002
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if the KJV is wrong? How do you know it's not?
     
    #28 Pastor Larry, Dec 16, 2002
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's missing BROKEN .. See Psalms 22 for details..

    How do you know if the MV's are or not??

    [ December 16, 2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
     
    #29 AV Defender, Dec 16, 2002
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's missing BROKEN .. See Psalms 22 for details..</font>[/QUOTE]This thread is not about Psalm 22; it is about 1 Cor 11:24 and whether or not "broken" is what Paul wrote. The question is not, Is broken theologically accurate, It broken what another passage says, etc. The question is, "Did Paul write this or did someone else add it in later?"

    How do you know if the MV's are or not??</font>[/QUOTE]Somehow I don't understand this as an answer to the question I asked you. I am asking for your basis for your knowledge ... How do you know that the KJV is right or wrong? (I have an answer for your question; at this point I am more interested in finding out if you have even thought about this.)

    [ December 16, 2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #30 Pastor Larry, Dec 16, 2002
  11. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What specifically is wrong about the NASB's reading here?</font>[/QUOTE]It's different from the King James Bible.
     
    #31 RaptureReady, Dec 16, 2002
  12. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's different from the King James Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]And thus the argument's circle is complete.

    Anyone *else* want to try to have an actual discussion?
     
    #32 BrianT, Dec 16, 2002
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From all of the available evidence, God never inspired Paul to write the words "God forbid" in his letter to the Romans. Are the originals also wrong because they do not agree with the KJV?
     
    #33 Scott J, Dec 16, 2002
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What specifically is wrong about the NASB's reading here?</font>[/QUOTE]It's different from the King James Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]This shows a keen mastery of the obvious ... but it does not contribute to the question that was actually asked. Again I remind us that the question is not, "Is the KJV different than the NASB in this verse?" The question is, "Which did Paul write and by what means do you verify that?"
     
    #34 Pastor Larry, Dec 16, 2002
  15. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What specifically is wrong about the NASB's reading here?</font>[/QUOTE]It's different from the King James Bible.</font>[/QUOTE]This shows a keen mastery of the obvious ... but it does not contribute to the question that was actually asked. Again I remind us that the question is not, "Is the KJV different than the NASB in this verse?" The question is, "Which did Paul write and by what means do you verify that?"</font>[/QUOTE]I do not know that Paul wrote anything. I believe he did. Just like I believe God perserved what Paul wrote till today.

    Finally, if the King James Bible has Paul writing "broken," then that is by faith what I think Paul actually wrote.
     
    #35 RaptureReady, Dec 16, 2002
  16. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So may we assume the same about the phrase "God forbid" in Romans. Was this phrase lost from every other copy and translation for 1500 years only to be restored by God through the KJV translators? If so, how does that fit with your claim for preservation?
     
    #36 Scott J, Dec 16, 2002
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think God preserved what Paul wrote until today as well. But there is substantial evidence to support the fact that he did not include "broken." That was most likely a later addition and the MVs rightly reject it rather than adding to God's word. You must remember that the KJV is a translation, some 1500 years after the time that Paul wrote, based on a very limited number of manuscripts that were dated very late. That must be kept in mind in considering these kinds of things.
     
    #37 Pastor Larry, Dec 16, 2002
  18. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think God preserved what Paul wrote until today as well. But there is substantial evidence to support the fact that he did not include "broken." That was most likely a later addition and the MVs rightly reject it rather than adding to God's word. You must remember that the KJV is a translation, some 1500 years after the time that Paul wrote, based on a very limited number of manuscripts that were dated very late. That must be kept in mind in considering these kinds of things.</font>[/QUOTE]First of all, we have no originals so therefore we can never factually prove he did write anything in the Bible. What I am saying is, the King James Bible, not translation or version, but THE HOLY BIBLE is God's perserved word for us today and I need nothing else to back it up. Why must we question the Bible? WHY? Make it your final answer.

    P.S. If anything differs from the Bible, it is wrong, that's what I believe and that's where I stand on the subject.
     
    #38 RaptureReady, Dec 16, 2002
  19. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV is a VERSION and a TRANSLATION, and you calling in the "King James Bible" instead of the "King James Version" doesn't change that. Why are you causing me to doubt my "New American Standard BIBLE" by comparing to a "King James VERSION"? ;) ;) ;) Why don't you believe the New American Standard BIBLE?
     
    #39 BrianT, Dec 16, 2002
  20. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you have no authority to say what Paul did or did not write. Why are you objecting so strongly to those of use are are saying??

    The KJV is a translation/version so your statement is inherently contradicotry. I do believe in the authority of God's preserved word and we need nothing else to back it up. But again, that is not the issue at hand here. 1 Cor 11:24 is preserved by God both with broken and without broken. That is the reality of it.

    This is where I stand. I am not questioning the Bible. It is my final answer. The question has to do with which of two preserved readings were authentic. They both cannot be true; the one in the KJV has less evidence than the other. That is the point.

    Your own assertion is demonstrated to be inconsistent with itself because your belief in KJV as the only word of God cannot be substantiated from the Bible. Therefore, it seems that Bible is not your final answer. I do not believe you are reckoning with this question fairly and with the seriousness it deserves.

    [ December 16, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
    #40 Pastor Larry, Dec 16, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 6
Loading...