God's Desire is that All Men be Saved!

[SovereignGrace]

Which ignores the cultural context. So no, not how it is testified in the KJV. That is you reading that into the text. It would NOT be clearly interpreted that way without the italicized meaning based on the context of the passage itself.

No, the verse is not talking about hell. And I never said those who are sexually immoral, without being changed in Christ, are not destined to burn in hell. What I said was is that is not being discussed in that verse. You really don't know what you are talking about.

He's anachronistic in his thinking and theology.

 

[reformed1689]

Take your chances. Fornicate. Tell God, I was only supposed to burn with passion: what do you mean I am going to hell?

This is a nonsense argument. Why do you think that interpreting to mean burn with passion gives license to fornicate? How does this change the doctrine? It doesn't. That is ridiculous.

 

[reformed1689]

He's anachronistic in his thinking and theology.

And not able to use common sense.

 

[justbyfaith]

adjective
pertaining to or containing an anachronism.

noun
something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time:The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.
an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one:

I don't think that I am anachronistic in my theology at all. The word of the Lord is timeless.

If you think I am antiquated because I am kjv-superior in my choice of Bible translations, well, I accept that.

 

[justbyfaith]

This is a nonsense argument. Why do you think that interpreting to mean burn with passion gives license to fornicate? How does this change the doctrine? It doesn't. That is ridiculous.

Because you will not burn in hell, you will only burn with passion if you fornicate. It is a subtle change that amounts to giving license.

And not able to use common sense.

Now there's some good fruit. Insults. Jesus is very pleased with you.

 

[reformed1689]

Because you will not burn in hell, you will only burn with passion if you fornicate. It is a subtle change that amounts to giving license.

If this were the only passage dealing with fornication that may be true. But it's not the only passage so your argument is nonsense.

Now there's some good fruit. Insults. Jesus is very pleased with you.

As if Jesus never insulted anyone.....

 

[reformed1689]

If you think I am antiquated because I am kjv-superior in my choice of Bible translations, well, I accept that.

No, you are anachronistic because you don't look at cultural and historical contexts.

 

[quietthinker]

Does God's Word really need to be "carifyed" ?? 1Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. == A stake in the false teaching Calvinism's heart!

You are thrashing in the straw GISMYS_7 and in so doing blurring the intent of Paul's statement to Timothy.
He is saying he does not want any to be lost....that is not to say that people will not be lost; the scripture is quiet clear on this.
Clarification is needed so that context remains consistent.

 

[SovereignGrace]

adjective
pertaining to or containing an anachronism.

noun
something or someone that is not in its correct historical or chronological time, especially a thing or person that belongs to an earlier time:The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare.
an error in chronology in which a person, object, event, etc., is assigned a date or period other than the correct one:

I don't think that I am anachronistic in my theology at all. The word of the Lord is timeless.

If you think I am antiquated because I am kjv-superior in my choice of Bible translations, well, I accept that.

What I meant by being anachronistic is that you are trying to use modern english and importing it into texts that were written almost two millennia ago.

 

[justbyfaith]

If this were the only passage dealing with fornication that may be true. But it's not the only passage so your argument is nonsense.

As a passage (in the newer translations), it contradicts the teaching of other passages...so my argument is not nonsense.

Other passages about fornication teach that there is condemnation over committing it. This passage, in certain translations, says that you will only burn with passion.

As if Jesus never insulted anyone.....

Go ahead and use Jesus as an excuse for your sinful behaviour; and see how that holds up when you stand before Him.

No, you are anachronistic because you don't look at cultural and historical contexts.

This is true...my particular style is to take the holy scripture itself and to bring out the application that I find in it. I don't want to convolute things with such things as culture and history (as that is not the milk and meat of the word). I do believe that the Bible is very capable of giving us its message apart from those things.

What I meant by being anachronistic is that you are trying to use modern english and importing it into texts that were written almost two millennia ago.

So then, anyone who uses a modern English version is anachronistic; and in order to not be so one must understand every word in the original Greek and Hebrew and basically read their Bible in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Am I very far off concerning what you are saying?

 

[SovereignGrace]

So then, anyone who uses a modern English version is anachronistic; and in order to not be so one must understand every word in the original Greek and Hebrew and basically read their Bible in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Am I very far off concerning what you are saying?

No, that is not what I said. What I said was that when you try to import a word that is from the earliest, the 17th century, and try to fit that meaning into a text from an entirely different language from the 1st century AD, you have to be careful in your application.

Look at the Greek word μετανοέω metanoeō. It means a change of mind(as in repentance), but that is not all that it means. This word has caused ppl to say that God changes His mind, as it says "He repented He made man" in Genesis 6:6. But that is not a Greek word but a Hebrew word. μετανοέω metanoeō means a change of mind, but it also involves a change in action.

From Dr. William Mounce...

Forms of the word
Dictionary:
μετανοέω
Greek transliteration:
metanoeō
Simplified transliteration:
metanoeo

Principal Parts:
μετανοήσω, μετενόησα, -, -, -
Numbers

Strong's number:
3340
GK Number:
3566
Statistics

Frequency in New Testament:
34
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
cv-1d(2a)

Gloss:
to repent, to change any or all of the elements composing one's life: attitude, thoughts, and behaviors concerning the demands of God for right living
Definition:
to undergo a change in frame of mind and feeling, to repent, Lk. 17:3, 4; to make a change of principle and practice, to reform, Mt. 3:2

μετανοέω | billmounce.com

So you see, μετανοέω metanoeō is more than just a change of mind but actions also. When you say repent and apply it to today's English word and say its only a change of mind, that is doing so by being anachronistic.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So then, anyone who uses a modern English version is anachronistic; and in order to not be so one must understand every word in the original Greek and Hebrew and basically read their Bible in the Greek and Hebrew languages. Am I very far off concerning what you are saying?

Here's another example of anachronism. Ppl say that the KJV was the bible of the reformation. Seeing that the reformation started 10/31/1517 when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Castle Church in Wittenburg, Germany, that is being anchronistic.

I am not saying the some of the reformers didn't use the KJV, but many of them never had a KJV, as it was first printed in 1611.

 

[reformed1689]

As a passage (in the newer translations), it contradicts the teaching of other passages...so my argument is not nonsense.

How? How does it CONTRADICT? That's nonsense.

Other passages about fornication teach that there is condemnation over committing it. This passage, in certain translations, says that you will only burn with passion.

It does not say you will "only burn with passion." You are adding that in.

I don't want to convolute things with such things as culture and history (as that is not the milk and meat of the word).

This is absurd. You HAVE to take in culture and history. I suppose you think that hot or cold in Revelation means on fire Christians or Christians who are stone cold right?

I do believe that the Bible is very capable of giving us its message apart from those things.

You are living proof that it doesn't.

 

[justbyfaith]

It does not say you will "only burn with passion." You are adding that in.

No...they added that in, in the newer translations.

I suppose you think that hot or cold in Revelation means on fire Christians or Christians who are stone cold right?

Of course.

You are living proof that it doesn't.

More insults?

But you are justified because Jesus said that the Pharisees' father was the devil; and called them hypocrites.

 

[reformed1689]

No...they added that in, in the newer translations.

No I am saying you are adding the "only" in.

Of course.

Again, wrong. Learn some historical context. Of course, you don't even need that to know that is the wrong interpretation. Why in the world would Christ rather you be stone cold against him? That makes NO sense at all.

 

[justbyfaith]

No I am saying you are adding the "only" in.

So, according to your interpretation, it is also speaking of burning in hell in the newer translations? Personally, I think that you are taking the "only" out.

Again, wrong. Learn some historical context. Of course, you don't even need that to know that is the wrong interpretation.

I'm interested in what you think the interpretation is with whatever historical context you want to add to it.

Why in the world would Christ rather you be stone cold against him? That makes NO sense at all.

It is better to be completely against the Lord than to be a half-hearted or mediocre Christian, is what this is saying. If you are half-hearted or mediocre, you are among those who give to the unbeliever the excuse that they always tout that every Christian is a hypocrite. But if you are against the Lord, at least you bear testimony for Him in that you speak against Him and yet live a sinful life that is abhorrent to the people around you; and thus Christ is glorified as the One who can deliver from such sins; as it will be seen that the reason why you live such an abhorrent life is your rejection of Christ.

 

[reformed1689]

So, according to your interpretation, it is also speaking of burning in hell in the newer translations? Personally, I think that you are taking the "only" out.

No, that particular verse isn't talking about hell at all. But clearly you don't understand.

I'm interested in what you think the interpretation is with whatever historical context you want to add to it.

I'm not adding anything to it. But hot refers to the hot springs in the area that would have been soothing, cold refers to the fresh water that would have flowed from the aqueducts that would have been refreshing. Lukewarm refers to where those two meet in the middle and make stagnant useless water that you could not drink and would throw it up.

It is better to be completely against the Lord than to be a half-hearted or mediocre Christian, is what this is saying.

No, that is not what this is saying.

 

[justbyfaith]

No, that particular verse isn't talking about hell at all. But clearly you don't understand.

It truly is; and the immediate and topical context bears this out (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). But your understanding has been colored by the reading of other versions than the kjv.

I'm not adding anything to it. But hot refers to the hot springs in the area that would have been soothing, cold refers to the fresh water that would have flowed from the aqueducts that would have been refreshing. Lukewarm refers to where those two meet in the middle and make stagnant useless water that you could not drink and would throw it up.

Okay, so in light of that information, what is the application of the passage?

No, that is not what this is saying.

I wait for your interpretation of the passage's practical application to our lives in light of the historical context...if the historical context hasn't nullified that in your understanding.

And, it is indeed what the passage is saying...reject it at your own spiritual peril.

 

[reformed1689]

It truly is; and the immediate and topical context bears this out (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). But your understanding has been colored by the reading of other versions than the kjv.

The immediate context does not. And what in the world is topical context?

Okay, so in light of that information, what is the application of the passage?

Why don't you tell me?

And, it is indeed what the passage is saying...reject it at your own spiritual peril.

No, you just simply have no idea how to go about proper interpretation. You act as if the Bible were:
1. written in English
2. Written today
3. Written to us

You completely ignore the fact that it was not written in English and it was written to a specific people at a specific time in a specific place. Your method would look at a letter written 500 years ago. And say that 500 years ago there was a building named "The Tall One" and today there is a building in that same city also named "the Tall One" and you then say the plain meaning is that it is talking about the building there today and not the one 500 years ago. Your method doesn't hold water and is absolute trash.

 

[justbyfaith]

The immediate context does not.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 is in the immediate context.

And what in the world is topical context?

See 1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv). Topical context is context that is not in the immediate vicinity of the verse that nevertheless speaks on the same subject or topic.

Why don't you tell me?

I want to hear it from you. You already know what my interpretation is. I want to know what yours is in light of the added information.

You act as if the Bible were:
1. written in English
2. Written today
3. Written to us

1 and 3 are correct. It is indeed written in English; otherwise we would not be able to read it in English. And how is it that you think that it is not written to us? if that were true, the Bible doesn't apply to us. But in all reality it is God's message to everyone inspired by the Holy Ghost.

And also, 2 is correct in that the scriptures are definitely published today for our reading enjoyment. If it were not written today, we would only be able to read what was actually written down written many centuries ago.

And say that 500 years ago there was a building named "The Tall One" and today there is a building in that same city also named "the Tall One" and you then say the plain meaning is that it is talking about the building there today and not the one 500 years ago.

If it is the same building then I wouldn't be that far off.

And also, there are scriptures that apply that way. Have you ever heard of how prophecy works like there are two mountains and a valley in between? Prophecy, most often, speaks of both mountains and thus the scenario you have presented above is not so far-fetched. For example, some prophecies applied to the time in question and apply to the time in question, but also have application for today.

Your method doesn't hold water and is absolute trash.

I would only say to you that I believe that you are hardening your heart with this statement.

Read Hebrews 3:7-8, Hebrews 3:15, and Hebrews 4:7.

Are you a fornicator?