Why Not More Doctrinal Unity Among Greek Students

[JD731]

I thought about this question after I read the following quote from agedman on the now closed Riplinger thread.

Apparently from your post you do not put much authority in the study of the original languages to tease out a more intensive and extensive understanding of God’s word. I find that remarkably sad. How can you not bring insight into John 3:36 if you do not comprehend that the two words translated “believe” by the KJV reflect far different aspects? It is not merely one does and the other does not believe; rather, there is open rejection, rebellion, and refusal in the “believeth not”. Other versions and language work help bring this thinking to light. KJV only folks typically miss the very cause of wrath. Lack of belief is not benign or dormant but a forceful rejection that vexes the very heart and mind of them that believe.

If those who studies and learns and translates the original language manuscripts into English and other languages and yet have major doctrinal differences based on the words, what is the advantage in knowing and studying those languages and why don't they have the same insight since they have the same Holy Spirit in them, if they are born again Christians, which I think most of them probably claims to be?

And, since I am asking questions; isn't John 3:36 (which was the example given above) to be interpreted in a dispensational framework because God does not impute sin to the living after Jesus Christ had propitiated him by the sacrifice of himself on behalf of all the world? If not, what did the cross of Jesus Christ accomplish for me and for you?

 

[Yeshua1]

I thought about this question after I read the following quote from agedman on the now closed Riplinger thread.



If those who studies and learns and translates the original language manuscripts into English and other languages and yet have major doctrinal differences based on the words, what is the advantage in knowing and studying those languages and why don't they have the same insight since they have the same Holy Spirit in them, if they are born again Christians, which I think most of them probably claims to be?

And, since I am asking questions; isn't John 3:36 (which was the example given above) to be interpreted in a dispensational framework because God does not impute sin to the living after Jesus Christ had propitiated him by the sacrifice of himself on behalf of all the world? If not, what did the cross of Jesus Christ accomplish for me and for you?

Should not the pastor or teacher dig back into the Hebrew and the Greek texts, as they alone were inspired by Him, and hold final authority over any translations derived off them?

 

[JD731]

Should not the pastor or teacher dig back into the Hebrew and the Greek texts, as they alone were inspired by Him, and hold final authority over any translations derived off them?

I say yes to your question but not to your conclusion. I use the Strong's all the time. However, I don't see proponents of modern translations questioning the accuracy of any translations with the exception of the KJV and NWT. If one believes they have a completely accurate translations, why test it against the original?

But, my question in the op is why isn't there more doctrinal agreement among Greek students. Agedman implied that there is yet I see more Christian denominations as time goes on and more translations in English, not fewer. Something does not compute, no?

 

[John of Japan]

I thought about this question after I read the following quote from agedman on the now closed Riplinger thread.



If those who studies and learns and translates the original language manuscripts into English and other languages and yet have major doctrinal differences based on the words, what is the advantage in knowing and studying those languages and why don't they have the same insight since they have the same Holy Spirit in them, if they are born again Christians, which I think most of them probably claims to be?

I'm sure Agedman will answer effectively for himself, but I'll just ask the same question back to you, rephrased. Why do independent Baptists and Bible Presbyterians and 19th century believers in all denominations, and any others who stick strictly to the KJV have different doctrines? "Come on man," to quote our president, the answer is obvious. Different systems of interpretation (grammatical-historical, allegorical) interpret differently whether the Word being interpreted is Greek, Hebrew, English, or Japanese.

P. S. Why do KJVO folks persistently say that we translate from "manuscripts" instead of "texts"?

And, since I am asking questions; isn't John 3:36 (which was the example given above) to be interpreted in a dispensational framework because God does not impute sin to the living after Jesus Christ had propitiated him by the sacrifice of himself on behalf of all the world? If not, what did the cross of Jesus Christ accomplish for me and for you?

Sorry, but I don't get your point. The verse means the same in any language, if interpreted or translated correctly. What in the world does "a dispensational framework" have to do with this verse? For example, the word "abideth" in the KJV is present tense (not prophecy). The Greek is μένει, also present tense. The Japanese is とどまっています, also present tense.

KJV: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Greek Byz. Textform: Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον· ὁ δὲ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

Lifeline Japanese NT: 　ご子息を信じる人は、永遠の命を持っているが、ご子息を信頼しない者は命を見ません。かえって、神の怒りがその人の上にとどまっています。」

 

[JD731]

Why do independent Baptists and Bible Presbyterians and 19th century believers in all denominations, and any others who stick strictly to the KJV have different doctrines?

Thank you J of J for your response. You know the answer to this question already and you answer it later in your comments so I will say a few things when I get there.

I will say this about some independent Baptists and Presbyterians and other denominations who stick strictly to the KJV. I can only answer for myself and generally for my local church with whom I fellowship. I doubt seriously that many Presbyterians are KJV only. I don't know of any but if you do then you will need to ask them why they are KJV only..

Different systems of interpretation (grammatical-historical, allegorical) interpret differently whether the Word being interpreted is Greek, Hebrew, English, or Japanese.

There is one Holy Ghost, who is the resident teacher of the born again Christian. You are correct to say the manner in which we approach the Holy Scriptures will make a great deal of difference in what we learn from them. Some Independent Baptists believe the very words of God are chosen and inspired by him and given to his prophets to write and Presbyterians and the Reformed sects, including Reformed Baptists, seem to generally believe it is the message that is inspired and not the words.

P. S. Why do KJVO folks persistently say that we translate from "manuscripts" instead of "texts"?

I don't have a particular reason but thinking about it, the manuscripts are handwritten texts. I will refer to them as texts if saying manuscripts is offensive to you.

Sorry, but I don't get your point. The verse means the same in any language, if interpreted or translated correctly. What in the world does "a dispensational framework" have to do with this verse? For example, the word "abideth" in the KJV is present tense (not prophecy).

Yes. This fact puts it into a dispensational framework. Let me say first of all that I believe the scriptures to be a spiritual book and anyone preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ can make spiritual applications from any portion of it and preachers often do. Certainly one could make a spiritual application relative to everlasting life from these words of John the Baptist in John 3:36 and that one must believe in Jesus Christ to possess it.

Having said that, if one is a teacher of the words and ways of God he knows that God has been working out his plan of redemption and making himself known in the affairs of men and more about God is learned as we progress in time. We know that God has made all his promises of redemption to and through one nation. Galatians 4:4-5 says this;
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

The first thing that anyone then or now must believe is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. According to John 20:30-31, it is the reason John wrote his gospel account of Jesus Christ. Every single justified believer in Jesus Christ who voiced what they believed about him said they believed he is the son of God. You can check that for yourself. Not one said they believed he is the saviour and not one of them believed he would rise from the dead after he was crucified. However, not one of them, even his closest apostles, understood or believed that he would die for them, be buried, and rise from the dead. Not even John the Baptist understood it. They were all looking at the Messiah as the one who would restore the kingdom to Israel and would be her king. That is the gospel that Jesus Christ preached to Israel for over 3 years but it would only be established when every living Israelite was born again. They could not be born again unless he died, was buried, and rose again from the dead. They would understand this as time progressed.

So, consider these dispensational passages.

John the Baptist said;

"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
(When was it taken away?)

Paul says in 2 Cor 5:21.

For He (God the Father, the Judge of all the earth) has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM.

And this in Heb 9:26

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world (kosmos), but now, once in the end of the world (aion = age) hath he appeared (appeared means he could be seen) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Here is what God said about us in this present age since Christ has taken away the wrath of God against sinners by enduring it for us in his own body on the cross.

2Co 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

So, what is the point? Wrath was abiding on sinners before the cross and like any OT person, he must believe what God said to him in order to be justified, because justification is from God and it is by the faith of the hearer with the evidence of the doing of his word. If one does not believe, then the wrath continues to abide on him, but not on the justified hearer. However, after the cross, wrath abides on no one because of the cross and all sinners can come to God in the name of Jesus Christ and he will receive them because reconciliation is a two way street and perfect righteousness is required for fellowship with God (Christ in you) and the new birth.

All men can be saved while they live but the scriptures say this in Heb 9:27.

For as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement.

Sorry for the long post but it is a marvelous blessing to preach the gospel of our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ. His bible makes the most sense in context but one must believe the words and apply logic and reason and the history of the unfolding drama of redemption.

John the Baptist spoke under law.
Paul spoke under grace.


.

 

[agedman]

...If those who studies and learns and translates the original language manuscripts into English and other languages and yet have major doctrinal differences based on the words, what is the advantage in knowing and studying those languages and why don't they have the same insight since they have the same Holy Spirit in them, if they are born again Christians, which I think most of them probably claims to be?

Insight is not completely determined by the Holy Spirit. Rather, intellect, background, living conditions, and a host of other matters impact the study of Scriptures. If everyone was on an equal playing field with all matters completely known, then there would be no disagreements concerning doctrine. Remember, even Peter remarked about how some teaching of Paul was a challenge. The educational level, the background, the type of presentation ability, and more all impact what we gather from the Scriptures.

Timothy was encouraged to study. If the Holy Spirit just presented the insights, why did Timothy need to dedicate himself to study?

The Holy Spirit teaches and brings to the heart of the believer (who studies the Scriptures) the principles that person needs.

And, since I am asking questions; isn't John 3:36 (which was the example given above) to be interpreted in a dispensational framework because God does not impute sin to the living after Jesus Christ had propitiated him by the sacrifice of himself on behalf of all the world? If not, what did the cross of Jesus Christ accomplish for me and for you?

I am uncertain what you mean by "dispensational framework" but I do understand the rest of the post.

I have a slightly different approach to the blood and the work of the cross.

First, I take that the blood was for all the world, not a select few. One will never stand before God not understanding that entrance to the book of life is based upon belief and not upon a lack of sufficient blood from the Redeemer. John and Paul are both clear in statements concerning the propitiation.

Second, the cross (though bloodied) was not a blood letting instrument of death. The Roman cross was meant to restrict the loss of blood that the person might live for days in torture. The blood was shed from the garden to the cross. So what was the purpose of the cross? It was to fulfill prophetic statements and it was the instrument of death. The tomb was the instrument of resurrection.

Only believers benefit from the death and resurrection of the Christ.

The unbelievers continue in rebellion and rejection and have no victory over death and the grave, no promise of eternal life, and have eternity to spend in torment.

Hope this helps.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't see a whole lot for me to interact with here, so I'll be brief. I teach Dispensational Theology, so I see no real need to answer your dispensational points.

Thank you J of J for your response. You know the answer to this question already and you answer it later in your comments so I will say a few things when I get there.

I will say this about some independent Baptists and Presbyterians and other denominations who stick strictly to the KJV. I can only answer for myself and generally for my local church with whom I fellowship. I doubt seriously that many Presbyterians are KJV only. I don't know of any but if you do then you will need to ask them why they are KJV only.

The Bible Presbyterian denomination is mostly KJVO, especially the folks in Singapore, where they are said to have over 30 churches. Here is their Bible College: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

There is one Holy Ghost, who is the resident teacher of the born again Christian. You are correct to say the manner in which we approach the Holy Scriptures will make a great deal of difference in what we learn from them. Some Independent Baptists believe the very words of God are chosen and inspired by him and given to his prophets to write and Presbyterians and the Reformed sects, including Reformed Baptists, seem to generally believe it is the message that is inspired and not the words.

I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible in its original languages.

I don't have a particular reason but thinking about it, the manuscripts are handwritten texts. I will refer to them as texts if saying manuscripts is offensive to you.

It's not a matter of the difference being offensive. It is a matter of education. If one opposes something, they should at least be educated somewhat about what they are opposing.

A manuscript (ms) is a handwritten document, in this case of the Scriptures. We have over 5,800 manuscripts (mss) of the New Testament. Nobody translates the NT or OT from a ms, unless they are simply doing research and have to translate for that purpose

What we translate from in the NT are called texts, books which have edited versions of the mss, edited into one coherent whole. I translated into Japanese from the Scrivener Textus Receptus Greek text, not from manuscripts. I am translating the OT from the Masoretic Hebrew text, not from mss.

 

[JD731]

Insight is not completely determined by the Holy Spirit. Rather, intellect, background, living conditions, and a host of other matters impact the study of Scriptures. If everyone was on an equal playing field with all matters completely known, then there would be no disagreements concerning doctrine. Remember, even Peter remarked about how some teaching of Paul was a challenge. The educational level, the background, the type of presentation ability, and more all impact what we gather from the Scriptures.

Timothy was encouraged to study. If the Holy Spirit just presented the insights, why did Timothy need to dedicate himself to study?

The Holy Spirit teaches and brings to the heart of the believer (who studies the Scriptures) the principles that person needs.

My post should in no wise be construed as being anti study. I mentioned the Holy Spirit in the context of understanding the mind of God. This is possible for the born again Christian only. The insight comes by the indwelling Spirit who makes God known through the words he has chosen and that he makes known to us. This is the reason we are to compare the words of scriptures because the manner in which God reveals his person and his ways is here a little and there a little and through figures and shadows and types.. This takes great effort and dedication. 1 Cor 2 says we have the mind of Christ, and according to his own words in John 12, Jesus spoke only the words given to him by the Father. This was possible for him because he had the omnipresent Holy Spirit indwelling him "without measure," who not only dwelt in him but at the same time was in the Father and the time and distance restriction that we must deal with was not an issue with him. We Christians, OTOH, have at this present time, only the earnest of the Spirit, which is down payment, so to speak, on the whole.
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

This means we must have the written words to receive the instruction from God and the Holy Ghost giving us insight through them. I will post one of the 3 prayers of the great apostle Paul for us gentile believers at the end of this comment that will speak to this point.

I am uncertain what you mean by "dispensational framework" but I do understand the rest of the post.

I mean that things written in the gospels were preparatory to what Jesus would accomplish in his death and resurrection. The eternal life that he was promising is secured through faith in what he said and did for Israel to whom he was sent and to whom he was ministering, but it will be accomplished after his death and resurrection. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, and Jesus came to make that sacrifice for the Jews first and also for the gentiles. So, the initial application of his words in the gospels were to the Jews. To the first salvation was by promise and to the other salvation is by grace. This is the great lesson we must learn from the apostolic era.

I have a slightly different approach to the blood and the work of the cross.

First, I take that the blood was for all the world, not a select few. One will never stand before God not understanding that entrance to the book of life is based upon belief and not upon a lack of sufficient blood from the Redeemer. John and Paul are both clear in statements concerning the propitiation.

Second, the cross (though bloodied) was not a blood letting instrument of death. The Roman cross was meant to restrict the loss of blood that the person might live for days in torture. The blood was shed from the garden to the cross. So what was the purpose of the cross? It was to fulfill prophetic statements and it was the instrument of death. The tomb was the instrument of resurrection.

Only believers benefit from the death and resurrection of the Christ.

The unbelievers continue in rebellion and rejection and have no victory over death and the grave, no promise of eternal life, and have eternity to spend in torment.

Not sure if you think I was making a case for limited atonement but I assure you I was not. That is a damnable doctrine, IMO.

Eph 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, (The your and you in this prayer is gentiles, as opposed to Jews)

16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

 

[JD731]

I don't see a whole lot for me to interact with here, so I'll be brief. I teach Dispensational Theology, so I see no real need to answer your dispensational points.

The Bible Presbyterian denomination is mostly KJVO, especially the folks in Singapore, where they are said to have over 30 churches. Here is their Bible College: Far Eastern Bible College | Singapore

I believe in the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible in its original languages.


It's not a matter of the difference being offensive. It is a matter of education. If one opposes something, they should at least be educated somewhat about what they are opposing.

A manuscript (ms) is a handwritten document, in this case of the Scriptures. We have over 5,800 manuscripts (mss) of the New Testament. Nobody translates the NT or OT from a ms, unless they are simply doing research and have to translate for that purpose

What we translate from in the NT are called texts, books which have edited versions of the mss, edited into one coherent whole. I translated into Japanese from the Scrivener Textus Receptus Greek text, not from manuscripts. I am translating the OT from the Masoretic Hebrew text, not from mss.

Thanks for the information J of J. It is a blessing.

 

[Yeshua1]

My post should in no wise be construed as being anti study. I mentioned the Holy Spirit in the context of understanding the mind of God. This is possible for the born again Christian only. The insight comes by the indwelling Spirit who makes God known through the words he has chosen and that he makes known to us. This is the reason we are to compare the words of scriptures because the manner in which God reveals his person and his ways is here a little and there a little and through figures and shadows and types.. This takes great effort and dedication. 1 Cor 2 says we have the mind of Christ, and according to his own words in John 12, Jesus spoke only the words given to him by the Father. This was possible for him because he had the omnipresent Holy Spirit indwelling him "without measure," who not only dwelt in him but at the same time was in the Father and the time and distance restriction that we must deal with was not an issue with him. We Christians, OTOH, have at this present time, only the earnest of the Spirit, which is down payment, so to speak, on the whole.
2 Corinthians 1:22
Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

This means we must have the written words to receive the instruction from God and the Holy Ghost giving us insight through them. I will post one of the 3 prayers of the great apostle Paul for us gentile believers at the end of this comment that will speak to this point.





I mean that things written in the gospels were preparatory to what Jesus would accomplish in his death and resurrection. The eternal life that he was promising is secured through faith in what he said and did for Israel to whom he was sent and to whom he was ministering, but it will be accomplished after his death and resurrection. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, and Jesus came to make that sacrifice for the Jews first and also for the gentiles. So, the initial application of his words in the gospels were to the Jews. To the first salvation was by promise and to the other salvation is by grace. This is the great lesson we must learn from the apostolic era.



Not sure if you think I was making a case for limited atonement but I assure you I was not. That is a damnable doctrine, IMO.

Eph 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, (The your and you in this prayer is gentiles, as opposed to Jews)

16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Limited Atonement of some degree held by all save Universalists!

 

[JD731]

The scriptures offers proof that knowing and being able to speak Greek and Hebrew languages offers little to no advantage in understanding the things of God. The scriptures says the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. The scriptures says that the world by wisdom knew not God.

All the writers of the NT knew both the Hebrew language and the Greek language. They also had the wonderful advantage of the very physical presence of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and traveled with him and saw his miracles. Yet on the last day of his freedom he said this to Phillip;

John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

He said this following to Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.

Jn3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

The dispensational point here is that not a single disciple or anyone else understood and believed that Jesus Christ would die and be buried and rise again from the dead, yet believing that is how we in the post resurrection period are justified and saved. We would not be justified if we believe only what those in the gospel believed, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Here is proof from each of the gospel writers as they wrote about the disciples in the last few days of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

Matthew:
Mt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

Mark
Mr 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

Mr 9:31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

Luke
Lu 18:31 Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33 And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

These men did not believe eye witness accounts of the resurrection.

Mr 16:9 Now when [Jesus] was risen early the first [day] of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 [And] she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told [it] unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

It was in this context that we get the next verse, verse 15. He is telling these who did not believe in the resurrection that believing the resurrection is the only way now to be saved. He sent them out to preach it and said those who believe it will be saved and those who do not believe it will be damned.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.




Most Greek scholars, I think, do not know that no one during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ understood or believed that Jesus would die and be buried and rise again from the dead. I believe one main reason for all the various cults and denominations is because men without the Spirit of God are trying to figure God out and the blind lead the blind and the result is a train wreck.

Whatever they believed in John 3:36 that justified them in the sight of God it was not that Jesus would die and be buried and rise again from the dead. I think the above statements proves that.

 

[JD731]

Limited Atonement of some degree held by all save Universalists!

Limited atonement is clearly defined in the Reformed system. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Reformed faith and possibly the worst doctrine that has ever been preached on the earth.

 

[Yeshua1]

Limited atonement is clearly defined in the Reformed system. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Reformed faith and possibly the worst doctrine that has ever been preached on the earth.

the doctrine makes perfect biblical sense if one holds to particular baptist sotieriology!

 

[JD731]

the doctrine makes perfect biblical sense if one holds to particular baptist sotieriology!

Ones who teach limited atonement are not teaching the redeemer whom the scriptures portrays and identifies a group for Christians to mark and avoid according to the instructions of Romans 16:17-18.

 

[JD731]

Here are a couple of things I learned from my personal study of the KJV without any help from Greek teachers or a Greek bible. Any someones who knows Greek may disagree with what I present very briefly here, but it does not matter, it is still true.

First, The epistle to the Romans is the first to appear in our NT but it was the 6th of the 13 letters of the apostle Paul to the gentiles and the seventh book written overall. It was written in 58 AD after the church already had a 28 year history overall and an 18 year history with gentiles in it. The passage in Galatians 3 that says the following, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" was written 9 years before this one in Romans 11, which says, "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew." Comparing these verses and considering this timeline teaches us that context is of tremendous importance.

The very first verse in the NT epistles identifies the theme of the book of Romans and more than that, the overall theme of the 13 letters of the great apostle Paul. That verse says the following.

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Here is the theme of his epistles, particularly Romans.
1) Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated (from the other apostles) unto the gospel of God,
2) Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
3) 2Co 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?
4) 1Th 2:2 But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention.
5) 1Th 2:8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.
1Th 2:9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.

Paul was uniquely the apostle of grace and during the apostolic era two principles of divine dealing were in place. The principle of promise (Christ came to fulfill his promises to the Jews) and the principle of grace, which was the divine principle of including gentiles who had no promises of salvation. All the above statements were made to gentiles concerning the gospel of God. But, the Jews were first in the church of Jesus Christ as a remnant by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead. Therefore, the gospel of God included the strangers of Israel among whom Paul first preached in Asia Minor on his first missionary journey. Peter says the following:

1Pe 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the gospel of God?

This is an us and them verse. Peter identifies the "us" as the house of God, another designation of the church of Jesus Christ, which is his body, with "them," strangers who will not believe. Remember, Paul had quoted Hosea 1 in Romans 9 as these people not being the people of God because of their great sinning and then Hosea saying in the same breath that they will be called the children of the living God. It takes a birth to be a child of God and 700 plus years had passed, but tag, these are it. Paul, a Benjamite, was from this region.

Now, for the theme of Paul's ministry.
1) Ro 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
2) Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
3) 2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

WOW! This is 10 times, a number most often associated in scripture with responsibility and gentiles, that Paul is referencing the gospel of God. What is the gospel of God in a nutshell definition. Here it is;

Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (see Eph 3:6), which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Read the sermon of Paul to the Athenians in Acts 17 now)
27 To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

How can anyone read the revelation of this mystery and believe in limited atonement? This gospel of God, which includes the gospel of Jesus Christ is the most glorious truth in the history of the universe. Praise God.

 

[Logos1560]

. However, I don't see proponents of modern translations questioning the accuracy of any translations with the exception of the KJV and NWT.

Perhaps you demonstrate that you do not see clearly. Your KJV-only bias seems to blind you.

 

[Logos1560]

Any someones who knows Greek may disagree with what I present very briefly here, but it does not matter, it is still true.

Because you claim something is true does not make it true.

Your posts have demonstrated that you choose to believe some KJV-only assertions and claims that are not true, and the Holy Spirit of truth did not lead you to believe them. KJV-only opinions are not Scripture.

The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning seems to try to make the KJV translators in effect into infallible popes.

 

[1689Dave]

Doctrinal unity? My experience has been to learn a certain viewpoint, in this case, Pentecostal, and then spend the rest of my time looking for scriptures to support it. All the time thinking this is what the bible says. And I think it works this way in every persuasion or denomination. This is why there is little if any truth to be found in churches today. The division among them proves it.

 

[JD731]

Because you claim something is true does not make it true.

Your posts have demonstrated that you choose to believe some KJV-only assertions and claims that are not true, and the Holy Spirit of truth did not lead you to believe them. KJV-only opinions are not Scripture.

The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. Erroneous KJV-only reasoning seems to try to make the KJV translators in effect into infallible popes.

Hmmmmnnn, I was not addressing the superiority of the KJV, though I obviously think it is superior, but I was making a case that knowing the Greek and Hebrew languages does not give a person the advantage over someone who believes God when he speaks to us in English, UNLESS, he believes the words he is reading. If someone studies the Greek language and becomes fluent in it and yet comes out teaching a doctrine like limited atonement then one can say his studies has borne no fruit for him. What difference does it make what copy of the scriptures one does not believe?

There is no more doctrinal unity among the community of Greek speaking Christians than any other community of Christians. Have you ever read a debate on these forums where Greek speakers argue with one another about how to parse a verb in that language? Trust me. Greek speakers do not agree among themselves about the meaning of the words they are reading. The proof they do not believe the words is that they divide up and create new and better English translations with different and better words so the rest of us can better understand the words, they say. At least they can make some money because many, if not most Christians, speak English.

But, after saying all this, let me reiterate a point that I have been making over and over in my posts. Sinners are not saved by believing a bible, they are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. That gospel is taken to men by other men who are convinced that Jesus came into the world to save the world and will save those who believes in him. A Bible is beneficial to us after we are saved to perfect our faith and to teach us about God and his ways. This is proven by a missionary who has been posting on this forum lately. This man went to Japan to preach the gospel of Christ to them. He learned the language so he could be more effective. After winning many to Christ by his witness, he is now translating the scriptures into their language but he will not send those bibles to the government of Japan or to the general population of the land, but to the churches he has established there. This is how it is always done. It would do no good to send a bible to Japan first and never go there.

God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[Logos1560]

The proof they do not believe the words is that they divide up and create new and better English translations with different and better words so the rest of us can better understand the words, they say.

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

According to a consistent application of your reasoning, the reason that the KJV was made was because its Church of England makers did not believe the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles so they tried to create a new and better English translation and yet they also borrowed and kept most of the words of those pre-1611 English Bibles. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators would have been unbelievers according to your assertions. The Church of England makers of the KJV were also greatly influenced by the scholarship of Jewish commentaries in the Second Rabbinic Bible, whose authors would have not been believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They also made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, including lexicons made by Roman Catholics. Those lexicons often and usually had as their definition of original-language words the renderings in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God translated into English although they had some imperfections and blemishes. Their goal was to make a better English translation just as the goal of later English Bible translators is.