-
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!
I Peter 2:2
- Thread starter Pastor_Bob
- Start date
It is not the "sincere milk." It is the "pure milk." The KJV has clearly subtracted from the Word by deleting "unto salvation" and changing the word from pure, without admixture. The KJV follows most of the miniscules and omits unto salvation. So in this case it does what the KJVO's accuse the MV's of doing. The KJV is sincerely wrong and that makes it impure.
Salvation is the theme of I Peter, the main subject of 2:2 is growth, then we have what causes and promotes that growth it is the sincere milk of the word:
97 adolov adolos ad’-ol-os
from 1 (as a negative particle), and 1388; ; adj
AV-sincere 1; 1
1) guileless
1a) in things: unmixed, unadulterated, pure
1b) in persons: without dishonest intent, guileless
Uh, gb, Have you missed something in the defintion of sincere?
97 adolov adolos ad’-ol-os
from 1 (as a negative particle), and 1388; ; adj
AV-sincere 1; 1
1) guileless
1a) in things: unmixed, unadulterated, pure
1b) in persons: without dishonest intent, guileless
Uh, gb, Have you missed something in the defintion of sincere?
ScottEmerson
Active Member
How is sincere the same as "unmixed, unadulterated, or pure?"
Of course, Webster's notes that sincere means pure in an archaic sense, but in today's wording, sincere doesn't mean "unmixed, unadulterated, or pure."
My take on it: sincere was a good word to use in 1611. Pure is the correct word to use in 2004.
Since you'd let this world destroy the meaning of sincerety, then that would account for why we MUST get back to the Bible and separate from the world.
Since when is "sincere" anything less than pure, unmixed, unadulterated? Of course in a world full of adultry, I can see it's demise on the coming horizon.
Sincere not pure? HAH!
Since when is "sincere" anything less than pure, unmixed, unadulterated? Of course in a world full of adultry, I can see it's demise on the coming horizon.
Sincere not pure? HAH!
brephos = unborn baby, tiny baby, still nursing (roughly, pre-born to 1-ish)
paidion = toddler, very small child (roughly 1-ish-4 years, still at mother's side)
teknon = small child (roughly 4-12, prior to bar or bat mitzvah)
Modern English would translate "brephos" (word used in I Peter 2:2) would be "babies".
Paidion is used in Matthew 2 (story of Jesus and wise men) as by that time he was no longer a "brephos".
Don't really care would English in 1611 would translate it since I live in 2004, not 1611 thank you!
paidion = toddler, very small child (roughly 1-ish-4 years, still at mother's side)
teknon = small child (roughly 4-12, prior to bar or bat mitzvah)
Modern English would translate "brephos" (word used in I Peter 2:2) would be "babies".
Paidion is used in Matthew 2 (story of Jesus and wise men) as by that time he was no longer a "brephos".
Don't really care would English in 1611 would translate it since I live in 2004, not 1611 thank you!
"sincere" is Latin. Means "without wax". It was stamped on sale of marble statues.
Evidently, unscrupulous sales people would fill cracks in statuary with wax so it would LOOK pure and unadulterated. Then, when sitting in the heat of the sun in your garden, the wax would melt and show the flaws.
We have the logical milk that is to be "without wax" - it will stand up to the "heat" of battle, as it does in our discussions.
Evidently, unscrupulous sales people would fill cracks in statuary with wax so it would LOOK pure and unadulterated. Then, when sitting in the heat of the sun in your garden, the wax would melt and show the flaws.
We have the logical milk that is to be "without wax" - it will stand up to the "heat" of battle, as it does in our discussions.
One can be sincerwely wrong or sincerely right. But pure is always unadulterated. The right thing is never wrong. Sincere is not a good choice og words for 2004.
I would not doubt the sincerity of most posters even when many would believe they are in error and can prove it. At times they go from sincerely wrong to sincerely right.
Adulterers are sincere at being selfish. But they are not pure and holy and are sincerely wrong.
"Since you'd let this world destroy the meaning of sincerety, then that would account for why we MUST get back to the Bible and separate from the world."
Do you tell people you are a gay man when you are happy without any further explanation. If not then you have done the very thing you write against.
I don't find in your postings that you are using archaic language to explain your position. So why use archaic langauge when you quote a verse or why would you even promote archaic language saying it is best. Let's face it the KJV 1611 uses a lot of language that has changed meaning and we do not even use any more. So why use that language that people do not understand and other words that have changed meaning to mean something different. For example the word "conversation."
QS
You didn't respond to :
posted February 05, 2004 04:20 PM
Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I would not doubt the sincerity of most posters even when many would believe they are in error and can prove it. At times they go from sincerely wrong to sincerely right.
Adulterers are sincere at being selfish. But they are not pure and holy and are sincerely wrong.
"Since you'd let this world destroy the meaning of sincerety, then that would account for why we MUST get back to the Bible and separate from the world."
Do you tell people you are a gay man when you are happy without any further explanation. If not then you have done the very thing you write against.
I don't find in your postings that you are using archaic language to explain your position. So why use archaic langauge when you quote a verse or why would you even promote archaic language saying it is best. Let's face it the KJV 1611 uses a lot of language that has changed meaning and we do not even use any more. So why use that language that people do not understand and other words that have changed meaning to mean something different. For example the word "conversation."
You didn't respond to :
posted February 05, 2004 04:20 PM
Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
One can be sincerely wrong or sincerely right. But pure is always unadulterated. The right thing is never wrong. Sincere is not a good choice of words for 2004.
I would not doubt the sincerity of most posters even when many would believe they are in error and can prove it. At times they go from sincerely wrong to sincerely right.
Adulterers are sincere at being selfish. But they are not pure and holy and are sincerely wrong.
"Since you'd let this world destroy the meaning of sincerety, then that would account for why we MUST get back to the Bible and separate from the world."
Do you tell people you are a gay man when you are happy without any further explanation. If not then you have done the very thing you write against.
I don't find in your postings that you are using archaic language to explain your position. So why use archaic langauge when you quote a verse or why would you even promote archaic language saying it is best. Let's face it the KJV 1611 uses a lot of language that has changed meaning and we do not even use any more. So why use that language that people do not understand and other words that have changed meaning to mean something different. For example the word "conversation."
ScottEmerson
Active Member
I Corinthians 5:9-10. Paul told us NOT to separate ourselves from immoral people who don't know Christ. He did tell us to separate ourselves from those who claim Christ but are continuing in immorality. Jesus, through his life, taught the same thing.
Scott, was that you I saw in the red light district in Amsterdam peeping in the plate glass?
Maybe you separate from that area of immorality and not be associated with them, unless of course you had a Bible in your hand.
I really can't believe you'd use that verse in the effort to start a debate over separation.
No, we are not separate from sinners neither should we be, but we are to be ecclesiastically separated from the world and it's anti-christ attitudes.
Maybe you separate from that area of immorality and not be associated with them, unless of course you had a Bible in your hand.
I really can't believe you'd use that verse in the effort to start a debate over separation.
No, we are not separate from sinners neither should we be, but we are to be ecclesiastically separated from the world and it's anti-christ attitudes.
Yes,l I do, I am gay. But then I ask them to define the word "gay". 99% of them say homosexuals are gays. About 1% catches on and says, "Oh, you know what I mean". I say, "No, I don't know what you mean, are you implying I am a sodomite?" No. "Then I am gay, I'm glad to be saved!" I go on to explain to them what the word really means and how this world perverts everything.
The word sincere means earnest. The use of sincere about being selfish would only mean a person is purely selfish, but that is an oxymoron becuase selfishness is impure, it is sin. You blatantly misused the correct term, maybe you should ahve said "honestly selfish" sincerely does exactly fit, but it certainly fits in I Peter 2:2
Your analogy is just a perfect example of accepting what the world dishes out and letting them take over in the end.
Nice try though, but you should pick on somebody who just doesn't know any better.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
No, but I have gone to sports bars to watch the Miami Dolphins play. I often find plenty of people who need someone to listen to them and offer them the love of Christ. I've never been to Amsterdam, but it seems like it'd be an amazing mission field.
Why run away from the mission field where God has called us?
Not starting a debate, just noting that Paul nor Christ followed the type of separation that you mentioned.
And how in the world does language come into play there. Is the natural change of language somehow antiChrist?
I'm so proud of you! really. I don't have that kind of liberty to sit in a sports bar watching a football game. I was in that atmosphere for too long, it's not my area to go, the Lord has me elsewhere, but good for you. hope everything is in order, God's order,
A friend of mine Bro. Danny Alford is in Holland and you're right an amazing mission field, full of all sorts of immorality, some we don't usually know about, or at least see that level.
Who said I was? I'm right in the middle of the mission field, it's where the Lord has said the fields are already white unto harvest. I am running to the field, not from.
Not starting a debate in a debate forum? Yeah, right.
I think you read something into what I said concerning the type of separation I am talking about when I say to separate from the world, I guess you really don't understand and not hesitant to make an accusation though.
In my field I get to meet all kinds, not limited to just a certain field, but I get into all fields, I'm a plumber and meet all kinds.
When you change the meanings of words, even though the world makes use of the changed words, it is a matter of the slang usage that accomplishes this. To look back to words and diminsh their meaning and to call them archaic is a deviation from truth. Anything that deviates from truth is anti-christ, Christ is the Truth. Slang is not natural, it is the offspring of illiteracy. Illiteracy is bathed in ignorance. It is ignorance of the meanings of words that leads to deception on the behalf of the more learned and practiced at the art of deception. If you want us to give up what is more pure and certain for that which is less understood, tough, we're not going to budge.
Please, we don't need a dissertation on the evolution of language here. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Languages change or die.
That's the way language works. Words acquire different meanings over time; slang becomes standard English or is discarded. And old words that don't make the transition over time become archaic.