Lets talk about the New Testament commandments (No Sabbath Talk Please)...

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hopefully we can find agreement somewhere in this. Just because we believe something doesn't make it true.

The fact is that this is language of instruction, not command. To "believe" this is an "explicit" command is really not correct, because to be "explicit" basically means there is nothing being implied. But you are taking an implication and turning it into an "explicit" command. This is interpretation, not translation.

For common ground, as I've said a few times now, I too identify such language (specific Greek words) and have added them into my commands list, but I identify the language as not being explicitly a command, because it is not. There is implied command in the instruction, but not explicit command.

Again, we end up in a very similar place, but not using the same language. This is why I've been careful to ask you to clarify your use of "explicit" and "non-explicit."

The rule is any action verb talking directly to the reader in telling you to do something directly is an explicit command. That is why John 3:17 that says, “You must be borin again” is an explicit command.
If it is a commandment for “man” or others and it sounds like an imperative, then it would be a non-explicit command.

You said:
Since I'm on this topic, I'm going to jump ahead and deal with something else you said. My intent is to put it to rest, so we can deal with commands. Is this not the point of your thread?

I don't think I know Biblical Greek, but know I know it to some fairly decent degree. I use this terminology ("fairly decent degree") to defer to your comparing me to Paul & the KJB translators and dumb remark about when I grew up. All such knowledge is certainly relative. But, frankly speaking, you don't have the knowledge or capacity to judge what I know or don't know about the languages. Those that do have some level of capacity gave me high grades throughout my years of sitting under their instruction and testing. So, I'd ask you to stop this line of discussion.

As for your KJB preference. I'm aware of those who have such preference, have discoursed with more than a few over the years, have read a fair amount of research on the matter, and have compared English & Greek & Hebrew translations for about 3 decades now. I'm also aware that you consider yourself as not the normal KJB user. Good enough. I can deal with your preference, but IMO opinion, which is all you also have at the end of the discussion, the KJB debate has been dealt with and its areas of lack are well documented.

No, you don't need to know Greek or Hebrew if you don't want to. It's not always just about the language, but many times it can be.

IMO we've come to agreements that I do not have with others who also know the languages. Assuming what we agree upon is correct, this just tells me you're a serious student who God is treating as such. I've known others like you who do well with the English, and not just the KJB. But my call was different and my favorite readings have ultimately been in exegetical works detailing specifics from the actual original languages of Scripture.

Please redirect yourself from this KJB preaching. I understand your preference. If you think I say something wrong from looking into Greek or Hebrew, please feel free to identify it. I'll do the same from whatever resources I use to explain my reasoning. If you conclude that the KJB is the only acceptable authority on the matter, I'll likely just move on and leave you to yourself as I was doing up to this point before your latest remarks.

Was trying to keep brief before this response. Sorry for the failure.

I have a passion for believing God's Word is preserved for our world language today and I see Modern Translations sometimes as an attack upon God's Holy Word. But if you don't believe that, then I will respect that and move on. But I also wanted you to know that the KJB is my final Word of authority and guide when I establish my NT commands.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thanks. This doesn't answer my question. I'll try to clarify:

KJV Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Do you see the 2 statements of "enter in" to be speaking of the same thing - meaning does "many...will seek to enter in" refer back to "Strive to enter in"?

I see the second part as a commentary to the command. It can either be in paranthesis for further explanation or it can not be shown just so as to show the command portion.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The rule is

Whose rule?

I have a passion for believing God's Word is preserved for our world language today and I see Modern Translations sometimes as an attack upon God's Holy Word. But if you don't believe that, then I will respect that and move on. But I also wanted you to know that the KJB is my final Word of authority and guide when I establish my NT commands.

Again, as long as you're clear that your belief and/or passion does not establish fact, we're OK.

One of the main reasons I went to seminary decades ago was due to the proliferation of translations and my desire not to have to rely on any of them, including the KJB.

We will likely run into issues between one another since you rely so completely on a translation of what is considered the original. It's just a matter of how we handle it.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here's the verse and your translation (interpretation):



Some observations & thoughts:

KJV Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NAS Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

- Firstly, what KJB are you using and why are you not posting from it? Here's the one in my software system I'm using: KJA, KJG Authorized Version (KJV) - 1769 Blayney Edition of the 1611 King James Version of the English Bible - with Larry Pierce's Englishman's-Strong's Numbering System, ASCII version. Copyright © 1988-1997 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research. Used by permission.

- Next, there is a variant in manuscripts in this verse, as can be seen between the more lengthy KJV translation vs. the NAS translation shown above.

- Using what you stated in the part you quoted, here's what's stated (paraphrased):

- Unless your wife has fornicated, if you put her away (divorce her) and marry another, then you commit adultery

- There is really just one situation stated here as it relates to his adultery (which is all you quoted):

- A man puts his wife away and marries another
- There are 2 potentials in his divorcing his wife & remarrying:

- His wife had fornicated, so he is not guilty of adultery
- His wife had not fornicated, so he is guilty of adultery
- If you're changing this into commands, then there is only one specific command here related to his potential of being adulterous:

- Do not put away your wife and marry another if your wife has not fornicated (the implication seems to be he divorced to remarry another)
- There are also some implied allowances (not commands):

- You may put away your wife and remain single if she has fornicated

- You may put away your wife and marry another if your wife has fornicated
- There is no command to put away your wife if she has fornicated​
- Your "translation": "You shall not put away your wife, except it be for fornication, and neither shall you put away your wife to marry another.":

- Your wording shows 2 commands, which may not be an issue in itself, but they seem redundant, assuming the fornication condition for both:

- You shall not put away your wife except it be for fornication

- You shall not put away your wife and marry another except it be for fornication

- The second point seems pretty much a given based upon the first point - thus the redundancy.
- There are a few more issues that hit me when I first read your "translation":

- You shall not put away your wife unless she fornicates
- Seems OK, but could also be turned into a command to put her away if she does fornicate, which is not commanded here.​
- You shall not put away your wife to marry another

- It's probably clear to you that fornication is still involved, but it's not absolutely clear to me in reading what you wrote
- As stated, yours is not a translation, but an interpretative choice to state a couple words (Greek and/or English) as commands rather than as necessity or obligation as they are actually stated.​
And here are my points:

- Precision, just as you said you're striving for.

- If we're going to interpret/change verses like these into commands, then I could argue that it's even more imperative to stay consistent with Scripture and to be absolutely clear. For example: if someone takes your language and thinks he must obey God and divorces his wife because she has fornicated, then you have just put a condition on someone that our Lord did not.

- Welcome to the history of the church as it sorts out and/or abuses His Word and authority.

- KJV James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. vs. NKJ James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Whether one favors "masters" or "teachers" as the translation (8 English translation on screen favor "teachers" and only the KJV uses "masters") - the point is clear: Be cautious in speaking for God and presenting His Word to others.


Well, I was not creating an official writing for publication so as to give out as an official reading to all Christians that is proofread and edited, or anything. I am also human and we are bound to make mistakes. I was also a little rushed when I did the translation. If I were to re-do the translation as a command: it most likely would say,

Translation: Except it be for fornication, you shall not put away your wife and marry another. (Note: Please keep in mind that the remarry part is not in other parallel verses).

As for my quote of Matthew 19:9 in my post #99 for the non-explicit commands:

I quoted it into two non-explicit commands. #2, and #3. So that is why you will see only one portion of the quote of Matthew 19:9 for one command, and the other secondary half for the other portion.

What KJB do I use?

I sometimes will quote from the KJB from the Tecarta app. Other times I quote from Biblehub. I believe the King James Bible circa. 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God for today.

It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2

2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19

3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4

4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16

5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24

6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16

7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1

8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8



By: “Bible Protector.”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here's the verse and your translation (interpretation):



Some observations & thoughts:

KJV Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NAS Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

- Firstly, what KJB are you using and why are you not posting from it? Here's the one in my software system I'm using: KJA, KJG Authorized Version (KJV) - 1769 Blayney Edition of the 1611 King James Version of the English Bible - with Larry Pierce's Englishman's-Strong's Numbering System, ASCII version. Copyright © 1988-1997 by the Online Bible Foundation and Woodside Fellowship of Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research. Used by permission.

- Next, there is a variant in manuscripts in this verse, as can be seen between the more lengthy KJV translation vs. the NAS translation shown above.

- Using what you stated in the part you quoted, here's what's stated (paraphrased):

- Unless your wife has fornicated, if you put her away (divorce her) and marry another, then you commit adultery

- There is really just one situation stated here as it relates to his adultery (which is all you quoted):

- A man puts his wife away and marries another
- There are 2 potentials in his divorcing his wife & remarrying:

- His wife had fornicated, so he is not guilty of adultery
- His wife had not fornicated, so he is guilty of adultery
- If you're changing this into commands, then there is only one specific command here related to his potential of being adulterous:

- Do not put away your wife and marry another if your wife has not fornicated (the implication seems to be he divorced to remarry another)
- There are also some implied allowances (not commands):

- You may put away your wife and remain single if she has fornicated

- You may put away your wife and marry another if your wife has fornicated
- There is no command to put away your wife if she has fornicated​
- Your "translation": "You shall not put away your wife, except it be for fornication, and neither shall you put away your wife to marry another.":

- Your wording shows 2 commands, which may not be an issue in itself, but they seem redundant, assuming the fornication condition for both:

- You shall not put away your wife except it be for fornication

- You shall not put away your wife and marry another except it be for fornication

- The second point seems pretty much a given based upon the first point - thus the redundancy.
- There are a few more issues that hit me when I first read your "translation":

- You shall not put away your wife unless she fornicates
- Seems OK, but could also be turned into a command to put her away if she does fornicate, which is not commanded here.​
- You shall not put away your wife to marry another

- It's probably clear to you that fornication is still involved, but it's not absolutely clear to me in reading what you wrote
- As stated, yours is not a translation, but an interpretative choice to state a couple words (Greek and/or English) as commands rather than as necessity or obligation as they are actually stated.​
And here are my points:

- Precision, just as you said you're striving for.

- If we're going to interpret/change verses like these into commands, then I could argue that it's even more imperative to stay consistent with Scripture and to be absolutely clear. For example: if someone takes your language and thinks he must obey God and divorces his wife because she has fornicated, then you have just put a condition on someone that our Lord did not.

- Welcome to the history of the church as it sorts out and/or abuses His Word and authority.

- KJV James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. vs. NKJ James 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.

Whether one favors "masters" or "teachers" as the translation (8 English translation on screen favor "teachers" and only the KJV uses "masters") - the point is clear: Be cautious in speaking for God and presenting His Word to others.


While the Cambridge Edition KJB is my final word of authority, I do like the KJVER Translation.

I did a review of the KJVER Translation here:

Comparison Between: The KJV vs. the KJVER (The King James Version Easy Read)

For study, I like the Defined King James Bible.

Defined King James Bible:

full


The Defined King James gives you a definition using older dictionaries on some of the older outdated words from the 1600's.

Note: You can click on the image below to zoom in.
full


This Bible is super expensive on Amazon.com.
If you are interested in this type of Bible, you can get a cheap vinyl one here:

The Defined King James Bible - Medium Print (Black, Vinyl, Black Letter)

Or you can get the leather, thumb indexed more expensive version here:

Defined King James Large Print Text Bible: BFT LBURX, KJV (#40302) - BTP

It is my favorite KJV Study Bible by far.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see the second part as a commentary to the command. It can either be in paranthesis for further explanation or it can not be shown just so as to show the command portion.

I don't have some of my books with me to review some of the timing of these 2 sections of Scripture (Matt7 & Luke13). So, I'm just going to skip several observations and I'm not recalling anybody's work on them. Also, I am going to stay a bit more literal with the Greek in some of this, because there are some issues that can be addressed in translations:

Luke 13:

1. Although there is a variant in manuscripts for Luke 13:24 as to whether it is a gate or a door as the point of entrance, it's likely a door as can be seen in 13:25.

- So, the command is to: Strive to "enter through" the narrow door, because many will seek to "enter" and not be able

- So, I agree with you that both "enter in" KJB translations in 13:24 are speaking of the same "entering through" the door as commanded (but both do not say "enter in" as the KJB translates.
2. In 13:25-27 some workers of unrighteousness come and knock at the door, but the householder/master of the house won't let them in and commands these workers of unrighteousness to withdraw/go away from him. Their reasoning for entrance was being around Him when eating, drinking & teaching.

3. In 13:28-29 Jesus identifies being inside as a matter of being "in" and "reclining in" "the Kingdom of God"

4. The command to strive to "enter through" the door has to do with not being a worker of unrighteousness, so when they come to the door going into the house of its master - in this case being equated to the Kingdom of God - they are in a condition to be let through the door by the master/householder.

Matthew 7:

1. In 13-14 the command is to "enter through" the narrow gate that opens to the pressed together / compressed / constricted / narrow way (different word than the "narrow" gate) that leads away into the life.

2. In 21 Jesus speaks of "entering into" the Kingdom of the Heavens.

- I see this portion as a parallel teaching to Luke 13.
3. In 21-23 Jesus speaks a similar condemnation to some as He did in Luke 13. The prerequisite for entrance is having done the will of His Father. Their reasoning for entrance was that they did works in His name. His command is similar to that in Luke 13 - to move away/go away from Him - and He refers to them as those who worked to accomplish lawlessness.
Although the commands to "strive to enter through the narrow door" (Luke13) and to "enter through the narrow gate (Matt7) both eventuate in being in the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of the Heavens, I'm seeing Jesus in Matthew speak of a narrow gate and a constricted way likely leading at the end to the narrow door.

The commands being similar are thus likely from different events, highlighting different issues, and explaining less vs. more of the process to the end.

In Matthew the command concerns an entrance in the beginning into the process > then the walking in the process > and then the end where the judgment will take place and they will be in or left out of the Kingdom.

In Luke the command concerns a striving in life process (righteousness) towards the entrance at the end where/when the judgment will take place. It seems to presuppose the Matthew command.

I don't see them as parallel commands, but dealing with similar matters in the end.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Whose rule?

The rule of grammar in the English language. Generally if a person tells you do something directly without asking, it is taken as a command. Jump over the fence. Stop running. Rub your belly and pat your head. These are direct commands telling the reader or listener to do a particular action.

You said:
Again, as long as you're clear that your belief and/or passion does not establish fact, we're OK.

I say, “I believe” a lot now because it was a forum suggestion by a moderator so as not to cause heated debate and or bitter disagreement. Many things in the Bible I believe strongly, and other things I believe are more possibilities and not facts (like which End Times view will happen, or if the wicked go through long periods of sleep in hell, and are awakened at certain times, etc.). In my view: If the other partner is still alive, remarriage is not advisable. While there appears to be an exceptional clause to remarry based on the other partner being unfaithful according to Matthew 19:9, we also have to consider Romans 7:3, as well.

I am still undecided. If memory serves me correctly, this thread was the last time I talked about this particular topic here:

The Bible's Laws on Divorce and Remarriage.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, I was not creating an official writing for publication so as to give out as an official reading to all Christians that is proofread and edited, or anything. I am also human and we are bound to make mistakes. I was also a little rushed when I did the translation. If I were to re-do the translation as a command: it most likely would say,

Translation:

I'll just read when you say "translation" and filter it as "interpretation." I'll do something similar with your use of "explicit" and non-explicit" since I think you pretty much make up your own rules for your own purposes. No offense intended, BTW, just a stated recognition and opinion. All this filtering is a bit of extra work, but I see no other way of reading you.

Thanks for the KJB info. No offense intended, but I won't be paying too much attention to it any further. I just noticed how much extra work it is to try to accommodate your preference and deal with the KJ wording that other English translations cleaned up over time. There were enough translation issues in the Matt7 & Luke13 verses to contend with. You can work to think per the days of the 17th century. As long as I'm going back, I prefer to go back much much father.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Also, I am going to stay a bit more literal with the Greek in some of this, because there are some issues that can be addressed in translations:

Which line of manuscripts for the Greek are you using? The Textus Receptus line of manuscripts whereby the KJB came from? Or are you using the Alexandria Egyptian manuscripts whereby all the Modern Translations came from? Many today hold to the idea that the original autographs are perfect, but that God did not continue to preserve His words in any existing languages beyond that. Most today who do not believe God's Word has not been preserved divinely in our world language today hold to the idea that 1 John 5:7 is not meant to be in our Bible and they hold to the fact the Alexandrian Egyptian manuscripts are superior. This is problematic because Arianism (i.e. a denial of the Trinity) originates from Alexandria, Egypt. Just Google the origins of Arianism to confirm it for yourself. Yet, Christians who believe in the Trinity argue against the trust worthiness of 1 John 5:7 should be in their Bible, and they point to the Alexandria, Egyptian manuscripts as their proof. Yet, this is where Arianism arised.

I also do not like the idea that all Bibles have errors in it, and so we have to look to the originals to create in our view the Word of God. This to me seems more like a waste of time trying to figure out what His Word says in a language we are not even remotely familiar with, vs. just reading and believing it. The problem is that we are not called to create our own version of the Word of God for today. Where in the Bible does it teach we have to go back and look at the older and better languages in order to understand God's Word? We don't. In Acts 2, God was more than capable of translating languages. I believe God continued to translate and or preserve His Word for the world language for today.

Jesus said beware of the scribes.
Scribes are those who TRAN-scribed the Law or the Scriptures.
In other words, the scribe is the scholar of our day.
There is no real way for me to confirm or deny what you are saying in the Hebrew and Greek because I do not have Moses or an apostle Paul around to confirm what you are saying. All I can do is trust plainly what my Bible says in a language I do know.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The rule of grammar in the English language. Generally if a person tells you do something directly without asking, it is taken as a command. Jump over the fence. Stop running. Rub your belly and pat your head. These are direct commands telling the reader or listener to do a particular action.

Funny guy. And is instruction that it is necessary to do something, or that we are obligated to do something, a direct command that you feel warranted to retranslate, based upon some rule of English grammar that you can reference for me, as a direct command and then call it a translation rather than what it is - a change in grammar - intended to draw out an implication (which in itself means there is no direct command)?

Generally if a person tells you do something directly without asking, it is taken as a command.

Generally if a person tells you to do something we're at least talking in command language. Generally if a person asks you to do something, we're not. Generally if a person gives instruction re: the necessity of our doing something, or the obligation we have to do something, it's instruction and we might consider the implication of command based upon who it is that's instructing, but it's not direct command and it's thus not explicit command.

Listen, I've said from day 1 here that I'm fine with drawing out implications. I've also informed several times that my list of commands contains the same implications, all in highlighted form so I can easily see such things.

So, let's move on. I'm not interested in what you think are rules of grammar, I'm sorry I asked you "what rules?" Translations, interpretations, implications, explicit, non-explicit, I've just attempted to understand your thinking processes and labeling, so I could better follow your reasoning on this work. I think it best at this point to just try to deal with the finished product.

I am still undecided. If memory serves me correctly, this thread was the last time I talked about this particular topic here:

The Bible's Laws on Divorce and Remarriage.

I'll pass for now on these ancillary readings and just consider any specific command presented.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'll just read when you say "translation" and filter it as "interpretation." I'll do something similar with your use of "explicit" and non-explicit" since I think you pretty much make up your own rules for your own purposes. No offense intended, BTW, just a stated recognition and opinion. All this filtering is a bit of extra work, but I see no other way of reading you.

Thanks for the KJB info. No offense intended, but I won't be paying too much attention to it any further. I just noticed how much extra work it is to try to accommodate your preference and deal with the KJ wording that other English translations cleaned up over time. There were enough translation issues in the Matt7 & Luke13 verses to contend with. You can work to think per the days of the 17th century. As long as I'm going back, I prefer to go back much much father.

No. I mean translation. It is to the best of my ability that I will translate or reword something from the KJB. Sometimes I do make mistakes when reading or understanding Scripture. Don't you? Have you never misunderstood something in the Bible before and you read something wrong?

As for Matthew 19:9 being a non-explicit command:

I am glad you have challenged me on this. Really I do appreciate the skepticism. It helps me to re-evaluate my position on it from the initial reasons of why I created it as a non-explicit command in the first place. I originally seen it as an imperative because of the mention of adultery was tied with certain wrong actions. We know “thou shalt not commit adultery” is a command in the New Testament (Which stems from out of the Old Covenant). So it's a big one. So I seen the mention of wrongful actions in regards to marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:9 is tied to the sin of adultery (the breaking of God's command that says thou shalt not commit adultery) as being an imperative and not optional. For can we commit adultery? Surely God commands us to not commit adultery even in the New Testament. But I get it. The language itself in Matthew 19:9 just by reading it alone does not sound like a non-explicit command based on commands given to “man,” and or others (imlying to include the reader because they are a “man” etc.). I do get that. So perhaps another “categorical list” is in order.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no real way for me to confirm or deny what you are saying in the Hebrew and Greek because I do not have Moses or an apostle Paul around to confirm what you are saying. All I can do is trust plainly what my Bible says in a language I do know.

So take it or leave it. And let's be honest here, you can't confirm or deny any Greek or Hebrew input because you're not trained to. I can work a bit beyond you language-wise and I can, like you, read any English translation put forth. I'm also willing to look at several English translations and consider why they translate differently. Non of this is a challenge BTW. It's just fact. And if Moses or Paul were here, they wouldn't understand your English nor you their Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Your points are baseless and it's useless to try to credential yourself because you've been convinced the KJB is the authority. Honestly, If I'd had known this earlier, I'd have passed on the discussions. I especially knew we were in trouble when you wrote to escalate yourself beyond the normal KJB proponent. Why don't you just stick with the Scriptures and let that work speak? Do you honestly think just because you're advanced in KJB that you shouldn't be challenged?

You sound in your arena like the denier who says he'll believe when Jesus Himself comes down and speaks to him face-to-face. Sure, you'll believe when Moses or Paul shows up. My goodness...
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Funny guy. And is instruction that it is necessary to do something, or that we are obligated to do something, a direct command that you feel warranted to retranslate, based upon some rule of English grammar that you can reference for me, as a direct command and then call it a translation rather than what it is - a change in grammar - intended to draw out an implication (which in itself means there is no direct command)?

I am pretty sure that when God tells us to do something directly, it is a command and not a suggestion.
I take this from the KJB because I believe it is the pure Word of God (Which you don't). So we are bound to have some disagreement.

You said:
Generally if a person tells you to do something we're at least talking in command language. Generally if a person asks you to do something, we're not. Generally if a person gives instruction re: the necessity of our doing something, or the obligation we have to do something, it's instruction and we might consider the implication of command based upon who it is that's instructing, but it's not direct command and it's thus not explicit command.

“You must be born again” sounds like a command to me because it sounds like it is telling me the reader to be born again. It also includes the word “must” in there, too. This does not sound like, “If you feel like getting around to it, it may be helpful to be born again.” Helpful instruction or wise advise would be written more as an “If clause,” or something and it would leave out the imperative wording. It would be speaking more in a factual way about certain truths, and it would not be commanding me directly, and or commanding mankind or anything. But we can agree to disagree. If you feel God does not command us to be born again, then by all means, you are free to believe that. I just read my Bible and call it like I see it. I know real life teaches me that if somebody tells me to do something directly and they are not asking, it is a command. This is how I take it.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am pretty sure that when God tells us to do something directly, it is a command and not a suggestion.
I take this from the KJB because I believe it is the pure Word of God (Which you don't). So we are bound to have some disagreement.

No kidding.

No kidding again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
“You must be born again” sounds like a command to me

May sound like it, but it's not a direct command. I agree we could see an implied command, but an actual command would be elsewhere. And since we cannot obey this command if it were a direct command, then there would have to be a different direct command we obey whereby the new birth is a result. IOW, we could only indirectly obey a command to be born again, because we cannot birth ourselves.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So take it or leave it. And let's be honest here, you can't confirm or deny any Greek or Hebrew input because you're not trained to.

I accept certain definitions in the original languages on rare occasion. But I do not see it as conflicting with the English in the KJB.

You said:
I can work a bit beyond you language-wise and I can, like you, read any English translation put forth. I'm also willing to look at several English translations and consider why they translate differently. Non of this is a challenge BTW. It's just fact. And if Moses or Paul were here, they wouldn't understand your English nor you their Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Your points are baseless and it's useless to try to credential yourself because you've been convinced the KJB is the authority. Honestly, If I'd had known this earlier, I'd have passed on the discussions. I especially knew we were in trouble when you wrote to escalate yourself beyond the normal KJB proponent. Why don't you just stick with the Scriptures and let that work speak? Do you honestly think just because you're advanced in KJB that you shouldn't be challenged?

I challenge your years of study. This is a threat to everything you have learned. So naturally the KJB position will be one of an offense to you. Why be open to such a position? Why consider the claims of KJB proponents as having any merit? See, I cannot find any substantial biblical proof for the OAO (Original Autograph Only) position. If anything, I see God translating copies and preserving them. I see God moving with the times. God did not stay with just the Hebrew language in preserving His Word, but He moved with the times to preserve His Word with the Greek. I believe He did the same with English. God moved with the times.

You said:
You sound in your arena like the denier who says he'll believe when Jesus Himself comes down and speaks to him face-to-face. Sure, you'll believe when Moses or Paul shows up. My goodness...

Again, you attack my faith in Christ because I do not share your OAO position? This is not a surprise. It's happened more times than I care to count.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
May sound like it, but it's not a direct command. I agree we could see an implied command, but an actual command would be elsewhere. And since we cannot obey this command if it were a direct command, then there would have to be a different direct command we obey whereby the new birth is a result. IOW, we could only indirectly obey a command to be born again, because we cannot birth ourselves.

Circumcision of the heart is another phrase in the Old Testament for being born again. Why do you think Jesus appeared to be surprised when Nicodemus did not know about being being born again?

Check out this thread here:

Old Testament saints were born again.

The Israelites were told to circumcise their hearts. This is why we are told to be born again. How do we become born again? There are certain actions that must take place in order for us to be born again of both water and born again of the Spirit. I see being born of the Spirit as a change of the heart by the Spirit, but I do not believe this happens at random. We need to be broken before God with a godly sorrow and seek forgiveness with the Lord Jesus Christ and dedicate our life to Him by way of prayer. We need to believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. When we do this, the Spirit will then give us a new heart with new desires (i.e. to be born again). So the command to be born again is to take the necessary actions that lead to the Spirit being able to give us a new born again life. To be born of water is to receive the Word of God as God's divine word and to believe that it has power to change our lives. We are born again by water by hearing God's Word. For we are born not of corruptible seed, but by the incorruptible Word of God. Like the parable of the sower, the seed of God's Word is sown in the heart and it produces much fruit. Good fruit. For a tree is known by it's fruit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums