Lacy Evans said:
You know something funny. I am probably the most adamant KJVO-God-rewrote-it-in English) guy on this board. I don't use a strongs. I never check "the Greek." I study it out in English and put my absolute faith in that one English book. So there are different perspectives represented here on ME. (Faust, James Newman, AV1611 Jim, etc are all KJVO) HoG, Jjump, obviously not.
I would say that Accountable is KJV preferred, as I am, but falls also into the latter category.
However, my point is that context and grammar never contradict.
That's why I never advocate
only looking at the grammar. That's also why I point out the contradictions created when a person holds to the "age is really forever" view. That's also why I, a journalism major originally, with a heavy emphasis on English grammar and composition, look to English etymological sources for the etymological history of a word. I look to those who study the English language for English definitions and history, and not the BDAG or Strong's or Vine's or Joe Bloe's Baptist Bible Definitions.
Grammar
plus context.
I have rarely found a Kingdom preaching church outside the Baptist persuasion (except for a few who dropped "Baptist" from their name as the Baptists in general abandoned these teachings). Most of them are KJVO or KJV Preferred. Many, if not most of them teach entirely from context.
The two complement each other quite well.
Grammar
plus context.
Or, we could stick to ignoring the grammar and stay only with the pretext, as so many have done.
Let me present a statement to you and let's see what it means to you, with no context. I can come up with at least three meanings:
"I want to smoke that faggot."
