Removing Our Theological Terms?

Funny you should speak of "honest", as I seem to recall you saying, or at the minimum implying, that the NKJV used the word "immorality" in an instance when it did not, but I'll try, anyway.

No, the NKJV is not limited in expressing the full meaning, but expresses it accurately.

Yes! Sodomite fits the exact definition of "arsenokotEs".

Necromancy as well as some other things are, no doubt, just as "sick", if not "sicker", but that is not the issue at hand.

The KJV rendering of "arsenokotEs" goes beyond the meaning of the word in the Greek texts. Thayer, Wigram, and Strong all render this in this same manner, as the word comes from two Greek words meaning 'a male' and 'to bed' or IOW, a male who lies in bed with another male, or a 'sodomite'.

And FTR, the word "arsenokotEs", is the same in both places where it is used (I Cor. 6:9; I Tim. 1:10) in all five Greek texts, that I have access to: TR1550, TR1894; W/H; UBS Aland, Black, et. al., 1966; MT Hodges/Farstad et. al., 1985.

Ed

 

Of course you'll "try" but to no avail. I was making reference to something else where other versions use the term "immorality" in the place of the more specific terms found in the Bible.

Be more specific, your conjecture lacks complete honesty in many incidences found in the NKJV.

But it does not define the term completely and individually, now does it?

So? The context only includes that, but is not exclusive to limit the context to only sodomy.

The thought is best expressed to the context that those who practice sodomy are abusing themselves and defiling themselves. IOW, it is a voluntary act.

If anything, the limited use of "sodomy" could easily incite the modern ideal that sodomites are "born that way", thus placing the blame upon God for their sin, NOT!

The question is not what the Greek word means, but the answer is that the sole responsibility for sin lies upon the individual.

The KJB is therefore theologically precise while the NKJV is found lacking, again.

Thank you for allowing us all to see that for ourselves.

 

I did, it's just a little more tongue in the cheek from my standpoint.:laugh:

 

Amen, Salamander! Preach it!

No matter how others may influence us, the sole responsibility for sin lies upon the individual. No one else can be fully blamed for what we do as individuals, no matter how much they may influence our decisions.

 

Oh really? You were making reference to something else?? Coulda' fooled me! And I am not particularly impressed to have it suggested I misunderstood your post, as well.

Let's see the actual quote you were responding to and your response. I'll give the link to help out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=41450&page=12

It's post #115 for further help. In fact I will paste the actual exchange to show who is actually making reference to what, here, just 'cause I am so helpful.

Since you are the one who connected 'digress', in the two posts, and I referred only to the NKJV, here, it appears that here, at least, I was not mistaken, after all. I will not fall for a "bait and switch" response. Maybe some others will, but I cannot speak for them.

Now who is offering conjecture, again? I don't post "conjecture", but give instances, verses, and cites, thank you. You (or anyone else) do not have to agree with my conclusions that I reach, just as I do not always agree with the conclusions of others. And if I do not agree, then is when I offer a substantive post, normally, if I have the time.

Sometimes this is true, sometimes not, I guess. But I was under the impression we derive our theology from the Bible, and not the other way around. Hence, whether or not you or I think that some version of Scripture is "theologically precise" is irrelevant, I would say. Instead, it's the theology that is 'imprecise', not that a version is "theologically precise".

No, thank you, for allowing us to all see for ourselves.

I have previously posted other places several times that I used a New Scofield (1967) Reference Bible with the KJV text, for almost 30 years, before someone 'lifted' it out of my cab. I had no intention of ever using another version. So I do not consider the KJV to be an inferior version, by any stretch. Nor have I ever. The only reason I do not use that same Bible today, is that particular wide margined edition, I liked so well, is out of print. Were it available, I would get another immediately. But it was not completely flawless, IMO. And I got the NKJV Scofield, ten years ago, because I could read the print without glasses, then. Unfortunately, since then, my arms seem to have gotten a bit shorter.

Ed.

 

You're a very dangerous person to suggest that theology and the word of God are somehow at odds with one another.

Theology is derived from the word of God. False theology is derived in the minds of men.:sleeping_2:

 

Theology as a system of theology!

Ed

 

Theology: the study of the Divine.

Not a "system of theology". One is a noun, the other is a phrase incorporating the noun "system".