| Author | Message | ||
| Seekr777 Registered user Username: Seekr777 Post Number: 827 Registered: 1-2003  |
mmmmm, "steer something else up." Well steers can surely stir things up. . . and if I was a steer and had the operation that makes me a steer I'd surely stir things up.  sorry just couldn't resist . . . well back to lurk before I get in more trouble. | ||
| Cordurb Registered user Username: Cordurb Post Number: 49 Registered: 4-2009 |
Chris / Colleen, Here are my adventist's wife's answers if you are interested.... This is a very interesting and convoluted stretch of an argument. I agree that all modern translators include parenthetical statements. For some reason whoever is writing this argument below is claiming that the parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19, which of course is not in the Authorized KJV, was the very statement of the disciple Mark. That is quite a claim. The Textus Receptus (Received Text), the stream of manuscripts from which the King James Version was written, has BY FAR the largest number of supporting documents/manuscripts. The text from which the new versions come from claim to be the oldest but have few supporting documents. It is a very interesting study, if you're ever interested, to learn about the history of these two streams of manuscripts. I think it would be interesting for us to look at together if you ever want to search out the truth, not just argue a side. And also interesting to note that the Textus Receptus was the only accepted source throughout the history of the world up until about 150 years ago. Remember that before his crucifiction, Jesus counseled his disciples and by extent all Christians to watch out that no man deceive you in Matthew 24:4-14 and then later in Matthew 27:63 the chief priests and pharisees called Jesus himself "the deceiver". So obviously both sides (the truth and and the deceiver) will call each other deceivers. So how will we know which is which? We must be able to rely on the Bible, the Word of God to divide truth from lies ("joint from marrow" Heb 4:12 which lie closely attached side by side). So the question becomes, which stream of manuscripts that claims to be the pure and true Word of God...which one is the truth and which one is the imposter. Possibly our salvation will rely on that very answer...if Jesus counseled his disciples to guard from being deceived, the very men who walked with Him. If they were in danger of being deceived than surely we are too. Also Paul, in 2 Cor. 2:17 made mention of people even in his day that "corrupt the word of God". So it was beginning to happen then. The author of the article below made another big assumption...that when Jesus fed the 4,000 he was feeding Gentiles. There is no indication of that in the scriptures. In the few places where He dealt with Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman, it is set out that the person was a Gentile - for the very reason that it was unusual and not socially accepted at the time. Just like when the woman touched the hem of His garment and was healed. I believe most reputable scholars do not say that the passage declares all food clean - only those that are trying to discredit passages of scripture for their own ends. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 646 Registered: 8-2008 |
If your wife believes her salvation hinges on whether or not she eats kosher meat, she has much bigger problems to deal with. Until she understands that salvation is not contingent on diet, nothing in the NT will make any sense to her. | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 942 Registered: 10-2008 |
Cordurb, I will lift your wife up in prayer ... I'm curious where she got her thoughts for rebuttle? Did she get them from an SDA pastor? Also, I'm curious how she would respond to Acts 15 - which sets out what the gentiles were "required" to do and keep. I found something recently ... Here is a quote from a track taken from DN Canright,
And the quote mentions Sabbath - but it would also refer to all the law of Moses. Anyways, I will keep praying, Keri | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3121 Registered: 10-2004  |
Cordurb, Chris can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe this is even a manuscript issue. What Chris was saying was that it is a translation issue with the KJV. The Greek is the same for Mark 7:19 in the manuscripts used by both the KJV and the modern translations. Right, Chris? Jeremy | ||
| Cordurb Registered user Username: Cordurb Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2009 |
Yes, that was my point to her Jeremy. I told her I thought she missed the point. Bskillet, I likewise said to her these things are not salvation issues. Keri, i will ask her about acts 15. Thank you for your prayers. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 647 Registered: 8-2008 |
Yep, as I pointed out, the phrase is in the Greek both in Textus Receptus and older manuscripts. KJV just mistranslates, as it does from time to time. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 10818 Registered: 12-2003  |
And as for feeding the Gentiles, history and geography confirm that the Decapolis was Gentile, not Jewish, territory. The Bible states they were in the region of the Decapolis--an area with 10 major cities which now lies in both modern Israel and Jordan. Colleen | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 648 Registered: 8-2008 |
I'm not sure why she's even arguing this point. Is she saying that people still aren't allowed to eat with Gentiles? If she wants to argue that, then she's going to have to require that all her male family members are ritually circumcised, or else she can't eat at the family table. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 695 Registered: 7-2000 |
No, the KJV does not mistranslate and no, the TR does not read as the Westcott-Hort. A very simple check is by the Youngs Literal Translation which follows the TR/Majority text. Here is Youngs: 18 and he saith to them, 'So also ye are without understanding! Do ye not perceive that nothing from without entering into the man is able to defile him? 19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.' Which matches the KJV quite closely. However, whether the parenthetical expression is accepted or not, v. 18 is very clear that 'whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him'. And v. 19 then gives the reason why: 'Because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and is then eliminated'. I am curious as to your wifes KJV only stance. Typically, folks of that persuasion believe in verbal, plenary and inerrent inspiration. They believe that the words God gave were preserved down through time and that those words were carefully chosen by the Holy Spirit. This belief is contrary to the SDA position of 'thought inspiration'. I'd encourage you to go over to the White estate website and pull up the article on inspiration and have her read it. See if she agrees with it or not. It may just be the deciding factor for her leaving the SDA church. | ||
| Cordurb Registered user Username: Cordurb Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2009 |
Loneviking, here is a little more insight into her thoughts. My wife's last response if your curious. I will pull up the article you suggest. ___________________________________________________ I looked it up and according to Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, it does not say "to pronounce clean in a levitical sense." It says "to cleanse (lit or fig):-(make) clean (-se), purge, purify". And the job of the relatively large team of translators in 1611(actually the years leading up to 1611) was to take into account all kinds of factors in the translation of the Greek words, such as context, verb tense and many other factors you and I don't know about. Evidently they felt the correct definition of the word Katharizo was to purge, just like the current Greek dictionary says. It would be interesting to learn more about those translators, how they worked and the text from which they were working. They all worked independently of each other and then came together to compare and make sure they all agreed on the accuracy of the translation. It was quite an undertaking as I understand it. Also, obviously the Jews at the time Jesus made this statement did not interpret it as meaning all flesh was pronounced clean, otherwise later Peter when he had the dream of the unclean and clean meats descending in the sheet, would not have said "I have never eaten anything unclean". Obviously he still was following the clean and unclean eating rules. I have never said we are not allowed to eat meat, nor do I think being vegetarian has to do with our salvation. It is a proven fact though that, all other factors being equal, a person will live a longer, healthier life if they are vegetarian versus being a meat-eater. Even National Geographic and Oprah Winfrey have done studies and interviews on these findings. Of course, it is everyone's personal decision what they eat and I have no issue with eating whatever you want. It's just a matter of fact that certain lifestyles are healthier than others. As far as the draining of blood, God gave instructions for what meat was and is acceptable to eat and what was/is not...clean and unclean. And then in the clean meats the blood is to be drained out before consuming. I believe our salvation is completely based on Christ's merit. We cannot earn our salvation no matter how hard we try. And yet, we are responsible for the knowledge we have. We are responsible for obeying the Lord's requirements of us. Paul said that he daily buffets his body to do what it needs to do so that in the end, he will not lose the prize...obviously a major paraphrase because I've very rushed right now, but look it up. So there is work that needs to be done on our part. James talked about the balance between faith and works. Faith without works is dead and works without faith is useless... ___________________________________________________ I continue to find it amazing that I can read the same scripture as my wife and she just sees it the exact opposite..... | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1562 Registered: 7-2003  |
Jeremy, You are correct. I may not be following what Loneviking is saying above, but the Greek behind the KJV (TR) and the more modern Greek text I'm using (GNT '83) are the same at this particular point. The transliterated Greek, in both cases, is: "katharizon [masculine] panta ta bromata" So very, very literally it's: "Declares clean [he] all the foods". The interlinears that don't specify "[he]" do so because they want to keep a one word to one word ratio when translating to English. I get that, but you can't translate "katharizon" with any one English word and even if you use two words you still lose sight of the fact that Greek verbs are gender specific and that understanding the gender of the verb helps us understand who is doing what in many cases. You really can't capture the meaning of "katharizon" here without using at least three words. Something like "He made clean" or "He declared clean". So yes, it's a translation issue (or at least a language issue) and not a manuscript issue. I suspect that the English word "purging" might have meant something like "cleansing" or "purifying" 400 years ago in 1611. I've seen old texts where they talk about purging one's sins etc. However, that doesn't really matter much since we know what the Greek word "katharizon" means and it's bascially to "declare clean in a Levitical sense". All this is so technical that it becomes absurd at some point. The NT is pretty clear in several places that food laws are no longer binding. So the SDA who wants to deny it on these kinds of technical grounds is really just trying to avoid admitting the obvious. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3122 Registered: 10-2004 |
Thanks, Chris. By the way, it's good to see you posting again! It's interesting to note that the same Greek word is also used in Acts 10:15 for God having "cleansed" the unclean meats. Jeremy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1563 Registered: 7-2003 |
I didn't know that Jeremy. That is an interesting connection! Thanks. Chris | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 5861 Registered: 9-2006  |
All the Adventist I know claim they depend on Jesus merit, but they lie, its a snow job is what it is, because all their teaching point strictly to a works salvation. They say the same thing she did,while practicing something completely different. They are controlled by a lying Spirit, no matter how hard they try to cover up, and as long as they are under that spirits control, they will be forced to lie, it not deliberate, it is forced. So what they say is not going to make sense in the light of scripture. I have seen it too many times to be fooled by it, as they read scripture, when they come to one of their proof text, the light goes on, and when they pass that text, the light goes off and the rest of scripture they are blind too, until they again come to a proof text and nothing they read in between will enter their heart. Its not a matter of arguing scripture with them, or education, it is a matter of deliverance from that lying, deceiving spirit that has hold of them. You can't pin them down, because they have no substance within themselves. Our substance is the Lords Spirit, while their substance is the Adventist church. In others words gentleman, it's a spiritual problem, and not a problem of right or wrong Bible interpretation. Sooo...IMHO, you will have to deal with it entirely on a spiritual level. They really have no defense against a spirit filled Christian because empty words is no defense. But if that spirit filled Christian tries to handle these people in the earthly realm instead of the heavenly realm, he is going to get no further than they are, what you end up with is maybe a good argument that ain't worth beans. What they have is a form of Godliness, all the while denying the power thereof. Just an old grave yard ghost walking around in their grave yard digging in old dead bones, tossing dirt up in the air and muttering, personally I had put more faith in my dog building a car than I do an Adventist coming up with something useful. I may change my mind tomorrow, but I doubt it. River | ||
| Jrt Registered user Username: Jrt Post Number: 944 Registered: 10-2008 |
Cordurb, I continue to pray for your wife. Your last paragraph of your post was the most telling to me. And I'm so sorry that she sees salvation in the manner that she does. Yet, I, too, saw it the same way she does ... Your wife said, "I believe that salvation is based on Christ's Merit ... but we are responsible ... There is work to be done on our part." This is speaking out of both sides of your mouth - and I would do it, too. I will pray that the veil will be lifted from her heart and the lying spirit, River refers to, will be silent in her mind so that she can truly hear the gospel and its full message of grace. I will also pray for you Cordurb ... I'm sure it is wearying ... Keep praying ... God is the one that will lift the veil from her unseeing heart and He is the one that can silence the enemy ... Keri | ||
| Cordurb Registered user Username: Cordurb Post Number: 52 Registered: 4-2009 |
Thanks Keri. It is hard and tiring. Watching the bondage she is under is difficult. It is hard in a marriage when I would like to go somewhere or do something on a Friday or Saturday but that is off limits. I work my tail off all week and she dictates our whole weekend. It is a prison. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 649 Registered: 8-2008 |
Cordurb, your wife keeps asserting that the reason God prohibited the Jews from eating certain meats was for health purposes. Have you ever asked her to prove this to you from the Bible? | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 697 Registered: 7-2000 |
Cordub, for more info on the KJV translators, there are several good books out there. On Amazon you could find: Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure King James, his Bible and his translators. by Laurence Vance Gods' Secretaries, the making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson Highly recommended is 'Translating for King James', by Ward Allen in which the notes from John Bois who was one of the translators, have been translated into English. It sheds quite a bit of light on how the translators worked. Another source for many older, and out of print books is abebooks.com Sometimes they are cheaper than Amazon. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1133 Registered: 7-2007 |
Cordurb; until your wife sees that the Bible and the Adventist church do not agree, she will remain in bondage. Leviticus 20:24-26 says that the reason Israel was not to eat "unclean" meats is because that represented "unclean" people - the Gentiles. Then when Jesus died and rose, He tore down "the middle wall of separation" between Jews and Gentiles. (Eph. 2:14,15) Peter was told not to consider Gentiles "unclean" anymore. (Acts 10:28) Now there are not any such thing as "unclean" meats any more. (Romans 14:14 and 1 Timothy 4:1-5) Adventists are bound by the Sabbath too, not realizing that they are embracing the shadow instead of the Lord of the Sabbath. I'd like to copy and paste a letter I wrote here: quote: Dear ______, I tried to play your video about the Sabbath, but it wouldn't come up. I used to believe that a person had to keep the Sabbath and then (after more than 50 years), I found that Jesus is our Sabbath now. I have a few things I'd like to mention. * The Bible says that Gentiles weren't given the law. (see Romans 2:14) * The Bible says that the law was given at Sinai and not given to the people who existed before that. In Deuteronomy 5:2,3 Moses told the Israelites: "The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive." * Hebrews 4:4,5 refers to God resting on the seventh day of creation and saying of the people entering Canaan: "They shall not enter My rest." Verse 7 says: "again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today"...." So first, Genesis 2:2 is mentioned, telling how God rested the seventh day. Of all the days of creation, this is the only one that DOESN'T say "and the evening and the morning were the ____ day." God is STILL resting. His rest never ceased and He wants people to enter His rest. Second, Israel didn't enter His rest (verse 4), though they certainly DID keep the Sabbath. They were killed if they didn't keep it. Third it says in verse 7, "AGAIN He designates a certain day --- TODAY". We are to enter His rest today. * Hebrews 8:13 says that a new covenant has been brought in and that the old one is obsolete. Hebrews 9:15-17 goes into more detail about how Jesus brought in the new covenant. And what is the old covenant? Moses is talking to Israel in Deuteronomy 4:13 "So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone." Now nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament ("Testament" means "Covenant"), but what about the Sabbath? Colossians 2:16,17 talks about that. It mentions all three kinds of Sabbaths (yearly/seasonal Sabbaths - the feasts, New Moon Sabbaths and the weekly Sabbaths) and says that they are a SHADOW of Christ. So Jesus is our Sabbath! * Galatians 3:17-19 shows that the law was to be for a specific period of time, starting "four hundred and thirty years" after Abraham and was to go "till the Seed should come" --and that is Jesus. * What about now? See 2 Corinthians 3:7 which shows that now it's not "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" -- no, we are now in the "ministry of the Spirit" Who writes His law on our hearts. It's not man applying the law from the outside in, but the Holy Spirit apply His law from the inside out! Sincerely, Dianne |
