Question about NASB and 1 Cor 6:18

Then just understand that we are living in different worlds. Immorality doesn't necessarily mean sexual immorality in mine.

 

YOu guys need to relax. There was nothing at all degrading about what I said. Take a bit to chill out and relax. We are friends here. My point was, and still is, that when someone says, "So and so fell into immorality," we do not wonder if they were caught lying or stealing. We all understand that they had an sexual relationship. We use the word that way all the time; that is its predominant usage. That was my point. If you guys use it differently, then so be it. I suspect that in informal conversation, you probably use it the same way that I do. But it doesn't matter to me. The point still stands that the NASB is not wrong. I can't admit they missed it because they didn't. I don't see the big issue. As for admitting that the KJV does a better job than an MV, it's not hard; 2 Peter 3:5 is a case where I like the KJV translation; however, this is not a place like that. "Fornication" is not a word in common usage; sexual immorality is or immorality is. Fornication is a fine word but probably not the best.

So in the bottom line, my post was an attempt to say that we can agree to disagree. There was no need for you to overreact to it. This was a wasted conversation from the beginning. I can't imagine it has engendered this much discussion.

 

Then just understand that we are living in different worlds. Immorality doesn't necessarily mean sexual immorality in mine. </font>[/QUOTE]That was my point exactly ...

 

My friend, I assure you that I am completely relaxed and "chilled out." My problem comes not as a result of what you believe regarding this issue, but how you address those who disagree with you on this issue.

As a Pastor, when a church member has a question and does not understand the answer that I feel is obvious, I have never responded by saying:

If a Deacon or another member disagreed with me on an issue, I would never say:

If I would not take this approach with a church member, I shouldn't take this approach with anyone else, even those on here on the BB.

Then why not just say that?

My point is that there was no need for you to respond in a way that debases those who disagree. By telling Nimrod that he needs glasses is the same as saying he is not smart enough to see what is right in front of him.

To say to us, "I am not sure what world you guys are living in but it is very different than mine" is the same as saying, "You guys aren't smart enough to see it the way I do."

Again, I have no problem with your opinion; it is how you have chosen to express that opinion. IMO, it was, in fact, degrading. It clearly did not "show grace to other posters."

 

I'll join this converstaion as soon as I am done picking out the PEBBLES from the STONES that are in my backyard. You guys need a hobby! Good grief!

 

Bob, What is the issue? How did I address you in a way that debases you or anyone who does not share my opinion. At first glance, you may have misunderstood. But to continue after I clarified it seems too much to me. I told you what I meant; that should have been the end of it.

</font>[/QUOTE]I have never either. The comment you refer to is a 1) not to a church member; 2) can hardly be taken in a serious manner; 3) is easily answered by even a cursory glance at BAGD; 4) was not intended in a personal manner. I have been told that many times when I overlooked the obvious. It doesn't bother me; I end up laughing because of the obvious failure on my part.

If I would not take this approach with a church member, I shouldn't take this approach with anyone else, even those on here on the BB. </font>[/QUOTE]If you were derogatory than I would agree. But I was not being derogatory in any way and I clarified that. My point was about the usage of the word in the circles that I run in. You apparently use the word differently. To say that someone lives in a very different world is a figure of speech.

Then why not just say that?</font>[/QUOTE]It is a matter of verbal style and color. We use figures of speech and idioms and metaphors and similes and the like for that reason.

My point is that there was no need for you to respond in a way that debases those who disagree. By telling Nimrod that he needs glasses is the same as saying he is not smart enough to see what is right in front of him. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why didn't you say that???? (to quote you) ... Nimrod claimed to have looked at BAGD. But he missed what was very plain. It is common to make such a comment for those who overlook the obvious. There was nothing derogatory about it. (See above).

No it's not. Come on Bob ... I already explained that.

I fail to see your point.

If I offended, I apologize. I would encourage you to lighten up. It is fine to question the first time if you misunderstand a figure of speech someone uses. When they clarify it and say what they meant, then the misunderstandings and complaints should be over. While I don't know exactly what go2church meant, I do feel like this is a bunch about picking pebbles out of stones. Why in the world is something like this that big of a deal? When someone makes an outright false statement, everybody is fine. When someone states an opinion, some get bent out of shape. It seems kind of strange to me.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding and I hope that this puts it to bed.

 

Again, let me state that the opinion expressed in no way got me "bent out of shape." I was concerned about the manner of expressing the opinion. If I have misjudged your intent in this matter, then it is I who apologize to you for the misunderstanding.

 

Let me say that I'm not offended, Pastor Larry (and I am relaxed). I just think that you are painting the understanding of the word "immorality" with too broad a brush. I've heard you describe some things about your church and geographical area, and it truly IS a much different world from the one in which I live. Evidently in the world in which I live, "fornication" is probably in more common usage than where you live; "immorality" must tend to be used generically more than it is in yours. But to me the point concerning this is that translating "porneia" as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" keeps intact not only connotation, but also definition as relating to sexual immorality, which "immorality" doesn't necessarily do. Now that does not mean that "immorality" in incorrect, just that it is not as specific. The other choices are more specific in this case. Your explanation suits me just fine, but you must admit that the first few posts indicated that there was no distinction between "immorality" and "sexual immorality." Clearly there is.

 

WordWeb (a downloadable searchable dictionary with modern day definitions) yielded the following:

Noun: immorality

1.The quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
2. Morally objectionable behavior

Its antonym according to the same:

Noun: morality
1. Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
2. Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Noun: fornication
1. Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other
2. Extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations


Webster's (at e-Sword) yielded the following:

Fornication
FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]

1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.

2. Adultery. Mat 5.

3. Incest. 1 Cor 5.

4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2 Chr 21. Rev 19.

Morality
MORAL'ITY, n. The doctrine or system of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.

The system of morality to be gathered from the writings of ancient sages, falls very short of that delivered in the gospel.

1. The practice of the moral duties; virtue. We often admire the politeness of men whose morality we question.

2. The quality of an action which renders it good; the conformity of an act to the divine law, or to the principles of rectitude. This conformity implies that the act must be performed by a free agent, and from a motive of obedience to the divine will. This is the strict theological and scriptural sense of morality. But we often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws, without reference to the motives form which they proceed.

Then its antonym:

Immorality
IMMORAL'ITY, n. Any act or practice which contravenes the divine commands or the social duties. Injustice,dishonesty, fraud, slander, profaneness, gaming, intemperance, lewdness, are immoralities. All crimes are immoralities; but crime expresses more than immorality.


Then "fornication" according to my manual Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.:

consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other - compare ADULTERY


I believe that in line with the above definition(s) of "fornication" is how the Baptists of old understood "fornication". Not as "immorality" as opposed to "morality", but as Voluntary sexual intercourse between persons not married to each other, and this according to the Bible is sin and lawlessness and ungodliness. Furthermore, I have read some Baptist say that only an unmarried person can commit fornication. The same also stated that if a married person has sexual intercourse with an unmarried person then the married one commits adultery, but the unmarried commits fornication.

It seems to me the NT does not use fornication and adultery interchangeably.

As I see it it is wrong to render "porneia" as "immorality". Fornication is the preferable word as I see it. The words "immorality" and "morality" are quite general terms, fornication is specific and a technical term.


Lord Jesus Christ has said:

But myself I am saying to you, that whosoever mayest dismiss his wife, except for a matter of fornication, is making her to be committing adultery, and whosoever shouldest marry her having been put away is committing adultery.(Matthew 5:32)

According to some more well versed in the word of God the above statement, "a matter of fornication", refers to a premarital sexual act which the (present) wife of the man in question engaged in before marrying the man in question. Like as when a couple, both never having married before, are engaged and are about to enter the married state. And after the wedding they come together and it becomes apparent to the husband that his newly wedded wife is not a virgin like as she had given out to be, but had committed fornication with another man prior to their getting married. This according to some Baptist is what Jesus the Lord is referring to in the above verse. The same also pointed out that in some instance Christ spoke to the end He allowed no kind of divorce whatsoever, like as that all and every divorce is against the law of God, and sin.


I wonder if anyone else is familiar with this interpretation? Right now I tend to agree with it, but I would have to reread the article so as to be able to state anything definite.


Harald

 

Excellent analysis!

Jason

 

Pastor Bob, I believe that you're the only one that has made the point that 1 Corinthians 1:18 doesn't say flee anything. Thank you for posting that the correct Scripture reference is 1 Corinthians 6:18.
Nimrod, it is obvious from a couple of posts that you are against the NASB for whatever reason. I'm reminded that Nimrod was the name of the guy that wanted to construct the great tower to reach Heaven. That didn't work out for him too well.
We all ought to be careful where we're laying our bricks in this life.

 

BTW - The NIV reads, "Flee sexual immorality".