KJV Mistake Question

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Somehow I seriously doubt ScottJ "backed out because he knew he had lost".

This thread has lost its direction and is on page 6. It will be closed no earlier than 2230 tonight EST.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:


At least Scott J had the decency to back out of a debate in which he knows he lost.

"Lost"? Hardly.

If I have time, I'll try to get back to you before the deadline.

For future reference, if I "lose" a debate, vis a vis recognize that you are right and I am wrong, I'll acknowledge it.

Silence should not be misinterpretted as "consent"... I simply lost track of this discussion.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I never understand why this type of arguement never applies to the KJV translation team.

Lets suppose that this was written in 1611:

The biggest and most often mistake committed by the Authorised Version translation committee is they seem to forget that His Word is a two-edged Sword and even sharper than any witty inventions of men.

[ March 27, 2006, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Salamander]

Then you would have to prove the context begs for better, but you cannot.

Simply that the English language is not a dead language: none of its preceding verbage has ever died. The definitions are still availabvle to exact any understanding completely.

The error of new versions is they demand the changing to limit definition, but that is censure as the means to qualify the new version and disqualify the KJB. It's called CHEATING the language.

Oh, and Scott J, you LOST. Harmony of the Gospels and the doctrinal substance of the Epistles are in complete agreement, your arguement cheats the English.

Either you will have to try and argue that Judas didn't drink damnation, or he didn't drink the cup, but both would be error. Judas drank the cup, he ate the bread, but he didn't discern the body of Christ: Judas drank damnation to his soul.

 

[Salamander]

Silence should not be misinterpretted as "consent"... I simply lost track of this discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But is too often read as defeat from your side. So I will claim the victory in God's Word as correct and your arguement just a dismissible objection.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Silence should not be misinterpretted as "consent"... I simply lost track of this discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But is too often read as defeat from your side. So I will claim the victory in God's Word as correct and your arguement just a dismissible objection. </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever satisfies those fleshly urges I suppose.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:

Oh, and Scott J, you LOST. Harmony of the Gospels and the doctrinal substance of the Epistles are in complete agreement,

Yes... but in contradiction to your attempts to re-train and contort scripture to preserve a doctrine that is not to be found in the pages of scripture- namely KJVOnlyism.

your arguement cheats the English.

No. My argument accepts the English... that as a living language its definitions are changing... that damnation had a broader meaning in 1611 than it does know... and that the proper English word in 2006 for the Greek word in question is "judgment" and not "damnation".

Either you will have to try and argue that Judas didn't drink damnation, or he didn't drink the cup, but both would be error.

Judas was the son of perdition. He was not saved.

Judas drank the cup, he ate the bread, but he didn't discern the body of Christ: Judas drank damnation to his soul.

Oranges and apples.

The people being addressed in 1 Cor 11 were disobedient believers. In fact, practically the whole epistle amounts to one long correction of error after error.

Even if you wanted to say that false professors were also among those who ate and drank unworthily, there is nothing in the text that limits it to them. Verse 32 is provides context that completely falsifies your assertion. Those being "judged" can be none other than believers since God doesn't chasten those who don't belong to Him.

I have yet to see you deal with these contextual problems with what you are apparently trying to prove. The context demands that believers be included in those who take communion unworthily. The word "damnation" means that doing so would cause them to lose their salvation as understood today. The word "judgment" means that they would bring chastisement on themselves as the context supports and verse 32 proves.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Salamander:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no presupposition that many believe but are not born again as evidenced by a life of contiual repentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />True. But not relevant to the text. Paul didn't call pretenders "brethren".

Only problem you have is that Paul was speaking to a church full of brethren and non-brethren alike, so it is relevent, just as God's Word is relevent and to all generations.</font>[/QUOTE] You need to show evidence that Paul assumed he was writing to unbelievers.

Even so, you just acknowledged that at least some of those receiving that rebuke were believers.... who can take communion unworthily but cannot drink themselves into hell.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern English cannot deny ancient understanding, unless modern English is a deception in it's origen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That statement makes no sense.

Sure it does,modern English cannot deny ancient understanding.</font>[/QUOTE] Still doesn't make any sense. "Modern English" can't "deny" anything...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Modern understanding can contradict "ancient" understanding with regard to English. Definitions change. Usage changes. Common understanding changes.

Ah! Now we see the result of corruption: modern understanding denying the ancient Truth.</font>[/QUOTE] Do what? You make less and less sense all the time. "Modern understanding" of language doesn't "deny" any truth... it is simply a reality.

The ancient "Truth" is that a believer who approaches the Lord's Supper with a wrong attitude is out of fellowship, mocks Christ's sacrifice, and opens himself up to chastisement.

Indeed, it is modern understanding- yours, that requires warped and strained interpretations... even denying reality in the process.

The ONLY way one comes up with a "new" version is to change definitions,

No. The definitions changed. New translations are necessary to ensure that what is read communicates the same meaning as the original.

The alternative is that misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and eventually false doctrines arise from people doing as you have done- forcing a modern definition into a text in the place of a word's previous definition.

it's always been the practice of satan! "Hath God said?"

Thou art the man...

The context demands judgment. One of the most able scholars on this board and a firm defender of both the TR and KJV confirmed that "damnation" was once synonomous to "judgment". So the understanding from the KJV in 1611 would have been "judgment". The understanding from MV's today is "judgment". It is only the KJVO who must say the word means "damnation" as currently understood.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1 Cor 11 was not intended to indicate that one of the "brethren" could suffer damnation but rather chastisement. But a person with a good grasp of contemporary English could easily derive a false meaning from the word "damnation".

Not coupled with the Spirit there is no misunderstanding that the brother suffers judgement for unconfessed sins and the unconverted will suffer damnation for unworthily partaking of the Lord's Supper not discerning/understanding that self judgement, is the precedence afforded by the self-ssame Spirit!</font>[/QUOTE] Would you mind too badly cleaning this one up? I can't understand your point.

Both apply, it is still a Two-Edged Sword!

If judgment of both the sinner and the saved are in view... then "damnation" is the wrong word and "judgment" is the right word for contemporary English readers.

One would HAVE to limit his Bible reading to this one particular passage( and void of the Spirit) to deduce what you say, that is never advisable.

No. I don't think so.

I have said that believers cannot drink damnation to themselves... that would place this verse in contradiction with the whole context of scripture.

Unbelievers can certainly drink unworthily... but they are not subject to God's chastisement because they aren't his children.

 

[saturneptune]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
Scott,
Thank you for your insights on Communion, and the deeper meanings of English.

Thank you for once again exposing yourself in public.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by C4K:
Somehow I seriously doubt ScottJ "backed out because he knew he had lost".

This thread has lost its direction and is on page 6. It will be closed no earlier than 2230 tonight EST.

Closed at 2345