[brandplucked;4507123]# 8. Fornication or Immorality?
1 Corinthians s 6:18 - "Flee FORNICATION. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth FORNICATION sinneth against his own body."
FORNICATION = ”Sexual intercourse between unmarried people” Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops Bible, Douay-Rheims, Geneva Bible, RV, ASV
1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee from SEXUAL IMMORALITY. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the SEXUALLY IMMORAL PERSON sins against his own body."
IMMORALITY = However you want to define it. What’s immoral for you may not be immoral for me. NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NET, Catholic New Jerusalem bible
http://brandplucked.webs.com/fornicationimmoral.htm
The Greek word
porneia can refer to
prostitution,
unchastity, and, also of
illicit sexual behavior in general.
This definition comes from:
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
by Ardnt and Gingrich
As you can see, it does not strictly refer to the illicit sexual relations that occur between
unmarried people. On the other hand, the Greek word
moicheia refers specifically to “adultery,” that is, to sexual intercourse between a
married person and someone other than their spouse. However, adultery also belongs to a
wider class of sins called "
sexual immorality." (Gk:
porneia)
This usage of
porneia is evident in in
Matthew 5:32 and
Matthew 19:9 where the sexual sin of a married person is not called
moicheia (adultery) but
porneia. This shows that pornia could be used used as a broad category that included any kind of illicit sexual act. So contrary to what you have said
porneia need not always be translated as "fornication." Context would have to dictate which definition is used.
Your view, that
1 Corinthians 6:18 is meant to address
only “sexual intercourse between unmarried people” does not comport with the principles elucidated in the verse. After all, is it not true that
all sexual sins that a person commits with another are sins "against their body?" For this reason the generic meaning of pornia makes more sense in the context than does its narrower definition of "
illicit sexual relations between unmarried people.
The rest of what you have written is incoherent.
“IMMORALITY = However you want to define it. What’s immoral for you may not be immoral for me”
Intrinsic to the concept of “im
morality” is the fact that there are
moral absolutes (sexual and otherwise) that can be violated. Therefore using the term "sexual immorality" instead of "fornication" in no way implies moral relativism.
# 9. Rejoice or Be Proud? Are Pride and Boasting Christian virtues?
Philippians 2:16 “Holding forth the word of life; that I MAY REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.”
REJOICE - Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young's literal, Webster's 1833, NKJV 1982
Philippians 2:16 NIV - "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."
ESV "THAT I MAY BE PROUD that I did not run in vain"
BE PROUD, BOAST, GLORY - NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman
On the day of Christ, when we finally see the full glory of God Almighty, we will not be standing around boasting of our accomplishments and patting one another on the back and telling them how proud we are of them. Nobody will be boasting or proud of his personal accomplishments in the day of the Lord Jesus. Instead we will all be flat on our faces worshipping the Lamb who alone is worthy to receive praise, honour and glory
http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsprideasvirtue.htm
The first responsibility we have as students of the Bible is not to adjust what Paul said to what we think he OUGHT to have said but to understand what he ACTUALLY said and
then try to understand what he meant. In this verse the Greek word the KJV translates as “
rejoice” is
kauchēma (καύχημα) which does
NOT mean “rejoice” but “
a boast”
This can be verified using the Strong's Concordance.
http://biblehub.com/text/philippians/2-16.htm
The Greek verb “rejoice” is not
kauchēma but
chairo (
χαίρω) which is a completely different word.
http://biblehub.com/greek/5463.htm
# 10. Heretic or A Divisive Person?
According to the Modern Versions even Jesus Himself should be avoided because He was divisive; but He was not a heretic.
Titus 3:10 KJB - “"A man that is an HERETIC after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
Heretic - Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version, Third Millenium Bible.
Titus 3:10 NKJV 1982 - "Reject A DIVISIVE MAN after the first and second admonition.”
A Divisive Person - NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET
http://brandplucked.webs.com/hereticordivisive.htm
First of all I think we can take for granted that Paul is not talking about anyone who is causing division by
teaching the truth. That is a silly argument.
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which is not at all in opposition to the KJV, defines “heretic” this way:
hairetikos: causing division
Original Word: αἱρετικός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: hairetikos
Phonetic Spelling: (hahee-ret-ee-kos')
Short Definition:
factious
Definition:
disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious.
Because the word gradually came to mean people who espoused false doctrinal systems did not mean it always had that connotation.
http://biblehub.com/greek/141.htm
# 11. Who was with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the fiery furnace, “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?
Daniel 3:25 - "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."
“The Son of God” Wycliffe, Bishops’ bible, Geneva Bible, Douay-Rheims, Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta, NKJV, Third Millenium Bible
Daniel 3:25 - “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
“a son of the gods” - NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman, Catholic Jerusalem bible, Jehovah Witness New World Version
http://brandplucked.webs.com/dan325thesonofgod.htm
El means either God or a god. The plural form “
Elohim” can refer either to (the) God or to gods. I think it is highly unlikely that this heathen king who he knew little to nothing about the God of the Jews would have been making a reference to Him. Don't you think it is more likely that Nebuchadnezzar would he have been speaking about the
many gods that he most certainly believed in? We might like the KJV's interpretation but when we are trying to understand this verse we have to take into account the King of Babylon's perspective not our own.
# 12. 2 Samuel 14:14 KJB- "Neither doth God respect any person" or
NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV - "God does not take away life"?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/2sam14luke24.htm
Absolam, lamenting his banishment is appealing to his father using arguments from God’s nature. The word in question can mean either “
take away” or “
respect.” Context determines which definition is appropriate.
It is not clear to me what the phrase “
neither doth God respect any person”means in the middle of this verse in the KJV. "God will not take away a life" makes somewhat more sense since Absolam had been 'taken away' and was living in exile. Though I am not sure what the meaning of this verse is, a case can be made for the modern rendering.
# 13. "the just shall live by his FAITH" or "the just shall live by his FAITHFULNESS"?
KJB - "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live BY HIS FAITH."
NIV 1978 and 1982 editions - "See, HE is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous will live BY HIS FAITH."
NIV 2011 edition - "See, THE ENEMY is puffed up; his desires are not upright - but the righteous PERSON will live by HIS FAITHFULNESS."
There is a world of difference between the just living by faith and the just living by his faithfulness. The first is the principle of living by the faith God has given us to believe the gospel of the grace of God in redeeming us through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The second - "the just shall live by his FAITHFULNESS" - is to remove the entire focus away from what Christ has done for us and to place it on ourselves, our performance and our own works.
The big theological question to ask is this - Does the just live by FAITH, meaning by what he believes about what God has done for us in Christ, or by his FAITHFULNESS, meaning how he lives?
The whole Reformation began with God opening the eyes of Martin Luther when he read the passage "The just shall live by his FAITH." He was finally freed from the heavy yoke of trying to obtain his own righteousness through the works and self merit system of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/habakkuk24.htm
I agree on this point. The NIV 2011 is definitely flawed which is why my own Church does not use it.
# 14. John 7:8-10 Did Jesus lie or tell the truth? If He lied, then He sinned, and He can't be our Saviour.
KJB - "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, THEN went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."
ESV, NIV 2011 edition, NASB - "You go to the feast. I AM NOT GOING up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come. After saying this he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, THEN HE ALSO WENT UP, not publicly but in private." (ESV)
http://brandplucked.webs.com/john78didjesuslie.htm
(more to come)
[/QUOTE]
In John 7:8 all the Greek manuscripts say “
I go not up” This includes the Critical Texts as well as Stephanus Textus Receptus, Scrivener's Textus Receptus, and the Byzantine Majority Text. All are in perfect agreement on the wording of this verse. In none does the Greek word “yet”(
eti) appear. The translators of modern versions cannot be faulted for
not including a word that was not in the original Greek texts.
http://biblehub.com/text/john/7-8.htm
John Chrysostom who lived in the Third and Fourth Centuries, whose native language was Koine Greek, who read very early MSS of the Bible in the original language, made these comments on this verse.
John 7:8
Go ye up to the feast: I go not up
yet.
How then, says some one, went He up after saying, '
I go not up'? He said not, once for all, I go not up, but, now, that is,
not with you.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240148.htm
First Chrysostom acknowledges that “
I go not up” is the actual phrase written in the text. This is what made it problematic to some who read it at the time. He never suggests that the Greek word "yet" (eti) was in the verse at that time. Had it been, no explanation would have been necessary.
His basis for saying that Jesus MEANT I go not up
yet is rooted in a careful examination of the Greek grammar. The verb “go up”is in the
present tense. Jesus did
not say “I
WILL not go up (in the future).” That would NOT be true. ”He said only that He was not going
at that present time. Since his brothers were probably already preparing to leave it meant he would not be going
with them. Thus, Jesus statement while perfectly accurate was left somewhat vague so that He could avoid having to answer the questions of his unbelieving brothers.
