UMC split

[Fastattack]

It is interesting to see how the various players attempt to justify their actions in the face of what the Bible clearly teaches. They can't even agree amongst themselves how to twist the Bible's words in order to feel good about themselves.

[billvau]

It is interesting to see how the various players attempt to justify their actions in the face of what the Bible clearly teaches. They can't even agree amongst themselves how to twist the Bible's words in order to feel good about themselves.

honest question - what does the Bible clearly teach?

blessings,

[Dezrat]

It is interesting to see how the various players attempt to justify their actions in the face of what the Bible clearly teaches. They can't even agree amongst themselves how to twist the Bible's words in order to feel good about themselves.

1Cor 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

[billvau]

1Cor 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

[Garand Hunter]

Its good to see you getting with the program again Bill.

Psalm 1

[billvau]

Its good to see you getting with the program again Bill.

Psalm 1

Thanks. I wish had more time for this! I'll still be erratic, but hopefully, not as much as I've been in the past. Still don't have time for deep, long, debates!

Blessings!

[Dezrat]

It's from an "obscure" version know as the King James Bible. I use an interlinear for study and teaching and am well aware of the Greek. A more applicable rendering considering the volume of factions based on heresies in these end times.
Maranatha.

[billvau]

It's from an "obscure" version know as the King James Bible. I use an interlinear for study and teaching and am well aware of the Greek. A more applicable rendering considering the volume of factions based on heresies in these end times.
Maranatha.

The KJV is definitely obscure and inaccurate for that verse. Certainly causes the reader to do a translation from archaic English. The KJV is also based lesser quality manuscripts than NASB and other literal, modern translations.

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that says that the factions were based on "heresies in these end times." 1 Cor. 1-4 details the factions very clearly. In fact, they hadn't even formed into actual groups. If you looked across the body, you could see people "saying" (per 1:12) who they were supporting, and that lumped into several people.

Blessings,
Bill

[Dezrat]

The KJV is definitely obscure and inaccurate for that verse. Certainly causes the reader to do a translation from archaic English. The KJV is also based lesser quality manuscripts than NASB and other literal, modern translations.

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that says that the factions were based on "heresies in these end times." 1 Cor. 1-4 details the factions very clearly. In fact, they hadn't even formed into actual groups. If you looked across the body, you could see people "saying" (per 1:12) who they were supporting, and that lumped into several people.

Blessings,
Bill

Oh my...
First, I did not say that the rendering was applicable to the time of the Corinthians, I said it was applicable to our time.
Second, even a cursory study indicates that if looking to confine to a local context, ch1-4 most definitely do not define the factions of 11:19 at all. The opening verse of the passage is vs17, introducing a different subject altogether from ch 1-4, and directly defined in vs20-21. Pretty straightforward.
I did not use the passage(11:19) in its local context, nor did I misuse it in applying its truth to much of what calls itself the Church today and its factions and heresies.
I'm not going to get into one of your thread derailments that unfortunately stir up strife and seem designed lift yourself up more that edify the Body.
I regret responding to your original comment towards me, from observation and experience I know better. I will refrain from doing such.
The OP was not about any of this, I mistakenly perhaps thought it edifying and relevent to the OP to remember that this was all declared long ago in God's Word to be happening.

See you in heaven where there will be no debate. Hopefully we can begin celebrating it soon on the way up!


Pastor Brian

[billvau]

Oh my...
First, I did not say that the rendering was applicable to the time of the Corinthians, I said it was applicable to our time.
Second, even a cursory study indicates that if looking to confine to a local context, ch1-4 most definitely do not define the factions of 11:19 at all. The opening verse of the passage is vs17, introducing a different subject altogether from ch 1-4, and directly defined in vs20-21. Pretty straightforward.
I did not use the passage(11:19) in its local context, nor did I misuse it in applying its truth to much of what calls itself the Church today and its factions and heresies.
I'm not going to get into one of your thread derailments that unfortunately stir up strife and seem designed lift yourself up more that edify the Body.
I regret responding to your original comment towards me, from observation and experience I know better. I will refrain from doing such.
The OP was not about any of this, I mistakenly perhaps thought it edifying and relevent to the OP to remember that this was all declared long ago in God's Word to be happening.

See you in heaven where there will be no debate. Hopefully we can begin celebrating it soon on the way up!


Pastor Brian

1. "Renderings" (I assume you mean "translation") are with respect to the Greek and the context to the book. In hermeneutics there is no such thing as a translation "applicable to our time." Application is applicable to our time, but they have to be of the in-context meaning of the text.

2. Yes, the factions of 1 Cor. 11 are related to Chapter 1. There are many facets to their social issues, and Paul's call that there "be no divisions among you," relates to every type of division in the letter. Yes, there is a specific issue there, but there were many facets to their division as individuals and as groups. See 1 Cor. 8, 10 for similar rich/poor division as in 1 Cor. 11. And, context of 1 Cor. 11 does not rule out that each individual possibly was choosing the house they went to based on the "I am of..." groupings of 1:12. The gatherings of 1 Cor 11 were not of the whole church in a single home.

3. 1 Cor 11:17f has a specific context - gathers of sub-groups of the church in the rich people's home for meals followed by the Lord's supper. "applying its truth to much of what calls itself the Church today and its factions and heresies" is too big a stretch for proper hermeneutics. And, there's nothing in 1 Cor. 11 about "heresies."

4."I'm not going to get into one of your thread derailments that unfortunately stir up strife and seem designed lift yourself up more that edify the Body. " Please repent of *trying* to read my heart. Nothing about my response had to do with lifting up myself more than edifying the body. Pastors are required to "accurately handle the word of truth" (2Tim 2:15) and that begins with an accurate translation of the truth. I simply pointed out the clear inaccuracy of the translation provided - and provided without explanation, thereby indicating to take the words as face value. So, honestly, posting that verse was where any possible derailment might begin.

5. "The OP was not about any of this, I mistakenly perhaps thought it edifying and relevent to the OP to remember that this was all declared long ago in God's Word to be happening." But you did none of that by using that incorrect translation of that verse, and a verse out-of-context.

6. I'll leave your personal attacks stand for others to see how you respond to someone just honestly correcting you.

Please respond to the arguments and not to your perception of the poster. You can't read hearts. And, please respond with a proper in-context, purely biblical answer. Then, its defensible.

Blessings,

[2761377]

^^^
don't need to read your heart to see the pride in your posts.

[billvau]

^^^
don't need to read your heart to see the pride in your posts.

Ouch. Another heart reader. Where, specifically, do you see "pride" in my post above?

[Wordupmybrotha]

I don't see pride in Bill's posts. I see someone defending their argument and I learn from these back and forths.

[Sailormilan2]

I have never been able to understand how someone can say that homosexuality is "acceptable", or "legal" when the Bible absolutely commands death to those who do it. I've heard people say that we must accept them, but that those who commit beastiality are wrong. Yet those two sins are in the same chapter in Leviticus and literally right next to each other, and both command the same punishment. Death. There is no exception.
Even some of Paul's statements seem to be specifically aimed at the LGBT community, and those get ignored, or twisted.

Please note. I am not saying anything about those with an "alternate" lifestyle, as it's been called. I don't want anyone saying I'm homophobic. I'm commenting on obvious, and possibly deliberate, misuse, or misinterpretation, of the Bible.

[billvau]

I don't see pride in Bill's posts. I see someone defending their argument and I learn from these back and forths.

Thanks.

Have a blessed day of worship!