Should a Modern translation "water Down" theological terms?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    I got a Nlt for my youngest son to read and study from, and do like to read it myself as secondary bible to Nasb/Esv, but noticed it took the terms such as propiation, and used different terminology?

    Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the standard terms/renderings, and have our youth/adults learn what old terms actually meant when written originally?
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would be optimal.

    But most people will read right over words they don't understand. Ask the average Baptist what "propitiation" means and they will likely think it has something to do with s*x.
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The idea of keeping archaic terms has little merit. Why learn a out of date word, then learn the doctrine. Why not just teach the doctrine using words in common usage today. After all, is that not what God did using Koine Greek.

    But if you ask folks what propitiation means, how many will say "the means of salvation?" "Church" words are just another cottage industry to keep folks employed teaching what they mean, with some saying it means this, and other experts saying it means that. Plus you have the pride effect, i.e. if I had to learn it, so do you.
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    Since i hold to the verbal plenary inerrant view on scriptures, think the Holy Spirit has his reasons though in using that vocabulary, and better to us learn what it meant at time when written!
     
  5. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Yeshua1, so you think the KJV propitiation is the actual word found in the Greek? News Flash, 1 John 2:2 reads "hilasmos" and refers to the means of appeasing God and thus providing salvation.

    Here is the NET footnote:

    "18tn A suitable English translation for this word (ἱλασμός, Jilasmos) is a difficult and even controversial problem. “Expiation,” “propitiation,” and “atonement” have all been suggested. L. Morris, in a study that has become central to discussions of this topic (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 140), sees as an integral part of the meaning of the word (as in the other words in the ἱλάσκομαι [Jilaskomai] group) the idea of turning away the divine wrath, suggesting that “propitiation” is the closest English equivalent. It is certainly possible to see an averting of divine wrath in this context, where the sins of believers are in view and Jesus is said to be acting as Advocate on behalf of believers. R. E. Brown’s point (Epistles of John [AB], 220-21), that it is essentially cleansing from sin which is in view here and in the other use of the word in 4:10, is well taken, but the two connotations (averting wrath and cleansing) are not mutually exclusive and it is unlikely that the propitiatory aspect of Jesus’ work should be ruled out entirely in the usage in 2:2. Nevertheless, the English word “propitiation” is too technical to communicate to many modern readers, and a term like “atoning sacrifice” (given by Webster’s New International Dictionary as a definition of “propitiation”) is more appropriate here. Another term, “satisfaction,” might also convey the idea, but “satisfaction” in Roman Catholic theology is a technical term for the performance of the penance imposed by the priest on a penitent."

    Hence, Christ provided the means of salvation not only for us but also for the whole world. This presents the idea without having to learn an archaic word and then learn a range of possible meanings and still be thrashing about in muddy waters. LOL
     
    #5 Van, Nov 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Why is it that the Bible is the only book in the world that is viewed as needing dumbing down for readability. In all the other types of books it would be scene as anti-intellectual to dumb down old novels or science books.
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Revmitchell, are you are exaggerating when you say the Bible is the "only"? If not, I must strongly disagree with your statement. There is overwhelming evidence of other books in the marketplace that are re-written, edited, abridged, and published for a less sophisticated or less technical readership. It seems to be becoming more fashionable and more necessary, although I have no real hard evidence to confirm these suspicions. But there is no need for Christians to self-persecute (or make false statements).
     
  8. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^^ that's a pretty "blanket" statement, and I find it totally false anyway. Most Baptists I have seen know very well what propitiation means, and have since the early grade school Sunday School classes! Shame on you. You all must attend church with some really dumb Christians.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    So, if you are correct, do the choices have to be self persecute or false statements? Is there no other options?

    Please show me other books that are dumbed down.
     
  10. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! Stop "dumbing down" the Bible, and start "wising up" the Christian!
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    I agree. The church needs to really start a well disciplined discipleship program. One such program is out of Florida and NY called the Word of Life. It keeps the students accountable to prayer and time studying and teaches real doctrine.
     
    #11 Revmitchell, Nov 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2012
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    When the KJV translators removed or did not use many words found in the pre-1611 English Bibles and when they made many renderings easier or simpler, was that supposedly "dumbing down" the Bible or "watering down" the Bible?

    Are believers supposed to use unrighteous divers measures or weights [double standards] by attacking other translations for doing what the KJV translators also sometimes did?

    For those who assume that the KJV translators did not update any archaic words or did not make any renderings easier in the pre-1611 English Bibles, I will provide clear evidence in a couple other posts.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    words found in pre-1611 Bibles but not in KJV

    Along with reducing the number of uses of several of the archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles, the KJV completely removed some archaic, antiquated, rare, unusual, unclear, or difficult words or spellings along with a few other words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. The KJV also removed or no longer used some words that would not be considered archaic today.

    A list of words in the pre-1611 English Bibles, which are not found in the KJV, would include the following: “ableness” (2 Cor. 3:5), “abrech” (Gen. 41:43), “achat” (Exod. 39:12), “advoutry“ (Mark 7:21), “affianced” (Luke 1:27), “afterbirth“ (Deut. 28:57), “albs” (Lev. 8:13), “almery“ (Deut. 28:17), “almuggim“ (1 Kings 10:11), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “atone“ (2 Cor. 5:20), “badge“ (Acts 28:11), “banketed“ (Job 1:4), “beer“ (Isa. 24:9), “beneficial“ (Acts 19:24), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened“ (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan“ (Jud. 9:53), “brawn“ (Ps. 119:70), “breakfast“ (Heb. 12:16), “breastlap” (Exod. 25:7), “bruterer” (Exod. 25:7), “buballs” (1 Kings 4:23), “buggers” (1 Tim. 1:10), “bugle“ (Deut. 14:5), “bugs“ (Ps. 91:5), “burgesship“ (Acts 22:28), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carpets“ (Prov. 31:22), “carrion“ (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations“ (Lev. 19:13), “chaft bones“ (Prov. 30:14), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness“ (1 Cor. 13:11), “childship“ (Rom. 9:4), “christened“ (1 Cor. 1:14), “clippers“ (1 Sam. 25:11), “colled“ (Isa. 15:2), “commonalty“ (Lev. 4:13, “conjurers“ (Dan. 4:7), “consistory“ (Ps. 107:32), “cowcasins“ (Ezek. 4:15), “cratch” (Luke 2:7), “credence“ (Acts 8:12), “cressets“ (Jer. 25:10), “cupboards“ (Isa. 39:2), “deadoffering“ (Lev. 3:6), “debite” (Luke 20:20), “deedslayers” (2 Kings 14:6), “delectation“ (2 Cor. 12:10), “despicions” (Acts 28:29), “discomforted“ (Ezk. 13:22), “diseasest“ (Mark 5:35), “disposers“ (1 Cor. 4:1), “dissembling“ (Prov. 12:19), “doe“ (Prov. 6:5), “door checks [or cheeks]” (Isa. 6:4), “dukedoms“ (Gen. 36:30), “effusion“ (Heb. 11:28), “egalness“ (2 Cor. 8:14), “emmets“ (Prov. 30:25), “emperor“ (Luke 20:25), “endote” (Exod. 22:16), “equalness“ (2 Cor. 8:14), “erewhile“ (John 9:27), “examinedst“ (Rev. 2:2), “excellentness“ (Ps. 96:6), “expounders“ (Jer. 27:9), “falcon“ (Lev. 11:17), “fardels” (Acts 21:15), “field devils“ (2 Chron. 11:15), “fiend“ (Mark 5:15), “flackered“ (Ezek. 10:19), “flacket” (1 Sam. 16:20), “flaggy” (1 Sam. 15:9), “flawnes” (1 Chron. 23:29), “felicity” (Gal. 4:15), “flittings“ (Ps. 56:8), “foreby“ (Lam. 1:12), “fore elders“ (Prov. 22:28), “fortuned” (2 Chron. 5:11), “fortunes“ (2 Kings 21:6), “fraudulent“ (Ps. 119:134), “frayles” or “frailes” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gabis“ (Job 28:18), “galaries“ (Ps. 73:4), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gard“ (Exod. 28:8), “gardes“ (Deut. 22:12), “ghostly“ (Rom. 8:5), “gloriousness“ (1 Cor. 2:1), “gnew“ (Rev. 16:10), “goers“ (Mark 6:31), “gorgeousness“ (Isa. 3:18), “goshawk“ (Lev. 11:13), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “grennes“ (Ps. 140:5), “groveling“ (1 Sam. 17:49), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “handreaching“ (Acts 11:29), “hangman“ (Mark 6:27), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “hawthorn“ (2 Chron. 25:18), “healthful“ (Tit. 2:11), “healthoffering“ (Lev. 4:26), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hedgehog“ (Lev. 11:30), “hilchapels“ (Amos 7:9), “hoared“ (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone“ (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie“ (Prov. 31:18), “idiot“ (Job 5:2), “ignorancies“ (Heb. 9:7), “Iims“ (Jer. 50:39), “improve“ (2 Tim. 4:2), “indwellers“ (Isa. 18:3), “inquirance“ (Acts 10:17), “incontinently“ (Mark 5:13), “inconvenient“ (1 Pet. 4:4), “inconvenience“ (Acts 28:6), “interrupted“ (1 Pet. 3:7), “intolerable“ (Exod. 8:24), “invocation“ (Ps. 89:26), “ixion“ (Deut. 14:13), “jakes” or “iakes” (2 Kings 10:27, Dan. 2:5, 3:29), “Jewship“ (Gal. 1:13), “knappeth“ (Ps. 46:9), “lamia“ (Isa. 34:14), “lamies“ (Lam. 4:3), “latten“ (Gen. 31:42), “lavatory“ (2 Chron. 4:10), “lay people“ (Acts 4:13), “lecture“ (Acts 13:15), “lever“ (1 Cor. 14:19), “library“ (Ezra 6:1), “ligurious“ (Exod. 28:19), “lither“ (Rom. 12:11), “loured” (Gen. 4:5), “luck“ (Gen. 30:11), “lucky“ (Gen. 39:2), “lusty bloods“ (2 Sam. 13:28), “lute“ (Ps. 144:9), “maidenhead“ (Jud. 11:38), “male stewes“ (1 Kings 15:12), “manchet” (1 Kings 4:22), “mandragoras” (Gen. 30:14), “manginess“ (Deut. 28:27), “manslaughter“ (Hos. 4:2), “manward“ (Titus 3:4), “marshal“ (Gen. 41:12), “maund” (Exod. 29:3), “meekened“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “meinie” (Gen. 22:3), “meked“ (James 3:7), “mercifulness“ (Rom. 12:1), “mirror” (2 Cor. 3:18) “misdoers“ (Isa. 53:12), “monstrous beasts“ (Isa. 34:14), “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “Muscatel“ (Isa. 27:1), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “naughtipacks“ (Ps. 86:14), “nebb“ (Gen. 8:11), “neers“ (Isa. 34:6), “neverthelater“ (Lev. 7:24), “nigard“ (Isa. 32:6), “nigardness“ (Isa. 32:6), “nightcrow“ (Lev. 11:16), “nippers“ (Isa. 50:6), “obstinate“ (Jer. 5:23), “ohim“ (Isa. 13:21), “otemeel“ [oatmeal] (Prov. 27:22), “overbody“ (1 Sam. 23:9), “overhand“ (Hos. 4:2), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overskipped“ (Deut. 26:13), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner“ (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier“ (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets“ (Acts 19:12), “patron“ (Acts 27:11), “pecks“ (Gen. 18:6), “penance“ (Matt. 3:8), “pensiveness“ (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce“ (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pickt“ (2 Chron. 13:3), “pight“ (Heb. 8:2), “pill“ (2 Cor. 12:17), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “pitfall“ (Job 18:10), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner“ (Micah 1:15), “prerogative“ (John 1:12), “puissant“ (Ps. 93:4), “pyght“ (Heb. 8:2), “quadrin“ (Mark 12:42), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “racked“ (Heb. 11:35), “rascal“ (Num. 11:4), “raynes“ (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate“ (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke“ (Deut. 14:16), “rickes“ (Jud. 15:5), “rigorousness“ (Rom. 11:22), “roomth“ (2 Sam. 22:20), “rowneth“ (Isa. 5:9), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “rythe“ (Jer. 49:31), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “seameaw“ (Lev. 11:16), “seditious“ (Ezra 4:12), “selaam“ (Lev. 11:22), “senator“ (Isa. 3:3), “sequester“ (Prov. 18:1), “sermon“ (Jer. 11:1), “sethim” (Deut. 10:3), “shalms“ or “shawms” (Ps. 98:6), “shope” (Gen. 2:7), “shrewd“ (Ps. 83:3), “simnel” (Exod. 29:23), “simulation“ (James 3:17), “slade” (1 Sam. 25:20), “slops” (Isa. 3:20), “smaragdus“ (Exod. 28:17), “Sodomward“ (Gen. 13:22), “softness“ (Phil. 4:5), “soleam“ (Lev. 11:22), “solicit“ (Prov. 6:3), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “sparrowhawk“ (Deut. 14:15), “sparsed“ (2 Cor. 9:9), “springalds“ (Dan. 1:4), “stackered“ (Rom. 4:20), “stambered“ (Mark 7:32), “stellio“ (Lev. 11:30), “stuffed“ (1 Sam. 19:13), “succourless“ (Prov. 31:8), “Sunday“ (1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinths“ (Isa. 6:13), “term“ (Ezek. 22:4), “testimonial“ (Luke 21:13), “toad“ (Lev. 11:29), “toot-hill“ (Gen. 31:48), “transitory“ (Prov. 31:8), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “trowel“ (Amos 7:7), “tufts” (Lev. 19:27), “tushe“ (Job 39:25), “tyranny“ (Job 3:17), “tyrants“ (Job 6:23), “unexpert“ (Heb. 5:13), “unfainedness“ (2 Cor. 8:8), “unghostly“ (1 Tim. 4:7), “unhealeth“ (Deut. 27:20), “unhele” (Lev. 18:16), “unlust“ (Isa. 43:22), “unquiet“ (Deut. 28:65), “unquieted“ (1 Sam. 28:15), “unquietness“ (Acts 24:18), “unright“ (Gen. 16:5), “unshodhouse“ (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts“ (1 Sam. 30:22), “unthrifty“ (Prov. 6:12), “untractable“ (Titus 1:6), “untruss” (Isa. 47:2), “untruth“ (Ps. 89:35), “uplandish“ (Jud. 5:11), “valiantness“ (Ps. 18:32), “voluptuousness“ (Titus 3:3), “wallfish“ (Isa. 27:1), “wastels“ (Lev. 24:5), “wealthiness“ (Job 21:13), “weaponed“ (Prov. 6:11), “weeding“ (1 Sam. 13:20), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “wherethrough“ (Dan. 2:1), “Whitsuntide“ (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “wiliness“ (Ps. 10:2), “winegardeners“ (2 Chron. 26:10), “withoutforth“ (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe“ (Ps. 119:29), “workmasters“ (Jer. 24:1), “worthies“ (1 Chron. 11:26), “wrutt“ (Ps. 80:13), “yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm“ (Isa. 13:21). There are likely other such words that could be included. In addition, if the Wycliffe’s Bible on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles was included, a much longer list of such words could be made.


    Instead of removing the above words from our English Bible, should the KJV translators have kept them so that readers would have to broaden their vocabulary?
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In my opinion, it would be wrong to throw out accusations against modern translations that are not applied consistently or that could be considered based on divers measures or double standards.

    Did the KJV translators dumb down the Bible when they changed or revised the following renderings in the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision?

    James 1:14 concupiscence (Bishops) lust (KJV)
    James 1:21 word that is graffed in you (Bishops) engrafted word (KJV)
    James 2:6 oppress you by tyranny (Bishops) oppress you (KJV)
    James 3:1 greater damnation (Bishops) greater condemnation (KJV)
    James 3:17 simulation (Bishops) hypocrisy (KJV)
    James 5:9 lest ye be damned (Bishops) lest ye be condemned (KJV)
    James 5:10 ensample (Bishops) example (KJV)
    James 5:14 Is any diseased (Bishops) Is any sick (KJV)
    James 5:16 Knowledge your faults (Bishops) Confess your faults (KJV)

    1 Pet. 1:7 laud, glory, and honour (Bishops) praise and honour and glory (KJV)
    1 Pet. 2:1 all maliciousness (Bishops) all malice (KJV)
    1 Pet. 2:13 unto the king (Bishops) to the king (KJV)
    1 Pet. 2:13 as having the preeminence (Bishops) as supreme (KJV)
    1 Pet. 2:14 the laud of them (Bishops) the praise of them (KJV)
    1 Pet. 2:21 an ensample (Bishops) an example (KJV)
    1 Pet. 3:22 Which (Bishops) Who (KJV)
    1 Pet. 4:4 And it seemeth to them an inconvenient thing (Bishops)
    Wherein they think it strange (KJV)
    2 Pet. 2:1 swift damnation (Bishops) swift destruction (KJV)
    2 Pet. 2:6 damned them (Bishops) condemned them (KJV)

    1 John 1:9 we knowledge our sins (Bishops) we confess our sins (KJV)
    1 John 2:4 verity (Bishops) truth (KJV)
    1 John 2:17 fulfilleth (Bishops) doeth (KJV)
    1 John 3:7 Babes (Bishops) Little children (KJV)
    1 John 3:14 translated from death (Bishops) passed from death (KJV)
    1 John 3:18 in deed and in verity (Bishops) in deed and in truth (KJV)
    1 John 4:6 spirit of verity (Bishops) spirit of truth (KJV)
    1 John 4:9 to us ward (Bishops) toward us (KJV)
    2 John 10 this learning (Bishops) this doctrine (KJV)
    2 John 10 to house (Bishops) into your house (KJV)
    3 John 4 walk in verity (Bishops) walk in truth (KJV)
     
  15. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0


    So glad you prefaced your posts with that. You have a right to it, just as other have a right to theirs! :thumbs:
     
  16. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    My opinion was based on the scriptural condemnation of the use of divers measures or weights [double standards]. I would hope that you were not suggesting that it is right to use double standards. In addition, I provided facts that back up my opinion.

    Would not an well-informed opinion be of more value than an uninformed opinion or misinformed opinion?

    People are entitled to their opinion, but are they actually entitled to throw out broad-sweeping generalized accusations that seem to smear and misrepresent all modern translations?
     
  17. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    I used to think an ostrich with its head in the ground pictured a person unwilling to listen to the truth, but now I get it. They are looking for a very old dictionary so they can read their KJV. No I did not go the long way around the barn, I simply fetched a compass. :)
     
  18. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am not KJO.

    During part 1 of my ordination council I was asked by one man, who at the time was a huge Rick Warren fan and the seeker sensitive trap, if I supported the practice of not using traditional theological and doctrinal terms found in reliable translations of the Bible in favor of using terms the average person would know. My answer was no.

    Keep in mind that language unites people. Words like sanctification, propitiation, justification, predestination and many others have been used for centuries to label key doctrinal issues. This meant that when people moved from place to place they would still hear the same terms. What then happens, if we are being faithful preachers and teachers, is an explanation of the original terms of the Greek or Hebrew. This should then be followed by a culturally relevant explanation to help the people learn what these terms mean and how they apply to them today.

    We all paraphrase when we teach and preach. The difference is where start. Do we start with a faithful foundation of God's ordained Truth or do we start with our own truth. I believe this is the key difference between a lecture and a sermon. Far to many preachers are just lecturing the folks, or telling stories, and not enough are actually preaching sermons.
     
  19. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Sanctification, does it mean to set apart, a one time action by God, or a process over time by which we grow more like Christ? Why muddy the water with words with dual meanings. The grammar of the original language provides sufficient clues so that we can say set apart when used in the first sense, and becoming more godly in the second sense.

    Propitiation, does it mean to cleanse or to turn away wrath? Why muddy the water with dual meanings, why not say "means of salvation"

    Justification, does it mean God crediting our faith as righteousness or God forgiving our sins or God declaring us righteous? How about our efforts to justify ourselves by proclaiming we are Christians. If our faith must be justified, then it is ungodly to begin with. So are we justified by our faith, or are we justified by God crediting our ungodly faith as righteousness. What a muddle of a basic biblical doctrine. Why muddy the waters. How are we justified? By God saying we are righteous, or by God spiritually placing us "in Christ" where we undergo the circumcision of Christ and arise in Christ a new creation?

    Predestination, does it mean God chose us individually before creation to be saved, or does it mean whatever circumstance or event that God has predetermined to bring about, such as a prophecy or plan. Is it specific to individuals, or can it be corporate, i.e. everyone God places in Christ will be resurrected at His second coming, such that we are corporately predestined to our adoption as sons provided we have the Spirit of Adoption, the indwelt Holy Spirit.

    Instead of bringing about a unity of doctrine, the inclusion of archaic words simply muddies the waters by generating endless debates over the meaning of words.
     
    #19 Van, Nov 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2012
  20. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,114
    Likes Received:
    220
    So are you suggesting we all learn Hebrew and Greek - only read Bibles in those lanuages?
     

Share This Page

Loading...