SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The "Sin Nature"

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

I don't know how many years it has been now, but I don't hear anyone singing God's Word in meetings anymore or even quoting the Word. There are just so many different versions. You want to show someone where the Bible says, "He heals the brokenhearted"? Don't use theirs, it won't be in there.

There is a natural rythm and syncopation to KJV and that is why I think there are so many good songs.

When I got saved I did not know a thing about Bibles. Someone gave me a KJV and I started consuming it. Never tried to memorize anything. Just read. But verses would stick inside me like glue. Any difficult words I came across I looked up. Learned a lot by doing that.

The other day a 26 year old Christian brother who reads an extremely wordy version asked me how I seem to have so many scriptures memorized and know where to go in the Bible to find something. I did not seize the opportunity to talk about Bible versions. I was just not led by the Holy Spirit to do that. But I did tell him, "I just read the Bible". I know he found that hard to believe and will probably come back again to ask more. I have found that it is best to just let people come to you and ask rather than to go around talking about bible versions. But, I did not sense this was the time to talk to him about what I have found out regarding Bible versions.

My kids from 11 years old and up, won't read anything else. They have no problem working a dictionary.

I don't want to pick on the NIV without giving equal time to the NASB.

Here is a chunk of info from Foundation Magazine.

We ask the question: "How can anyone be HELPED in their understanding of the Word of God when so many questions are raised about what should or should not be a part of the words of the text?" It is our judgment that the NASV marginal readings generally produce confusion, not confidence; they promote doubt, not faith! In themselves, the marginal references provide an additional reason to reject the NASV.

In presenting specific instances of serious differences between the King lames Version and the New American Standard Version, the following abbreviations will be used: King James Version (KJV); New American Standard Version (NASV); marginal reference (MR); manuscripts (MSS). Note the following verses, portions of verses or words which are in the KJV but are missing or questioned in the NASV:

Matthew 18:11-This verse, "For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost" is in the NASV, but it is in brackets with a MR which says, "Most ancient MSS omit."

Matthew 27:35-NASV omits a major portion as follows: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophet, 'They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots " There is NO marginal reference or explanation FOR THIS OMISSION.

Mark 1:1-The important words, "The Son of God" are in the NASV, but a MR says, "Many MSS omit."

Mark 15:28-The entire verse is missing in the NASV but in its place are the words (SEE MARGINAL NOTE). The MR says, "Later MSS add vs. 28." Interestingly, the liberal RSV text also omits this verse but its footnote says, "Many ancient authorities insert."

Luke 4:4-NASV omits the last part of this verse, "But by every Word of God" without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 4:8-NASV omits the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan" without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 4:18-NASV omits the words, "To heal the broken hearted " without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 22:43-44 These two verses are in the NASV but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS omit."

Luke 23:42-NASV omits the word, "Lord, " an important omission, without explanation.

Luke 24:6-The first part of this verse, "He is not here but he is risen" is in the NASV but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS omit." It is interesting that the liberal RSV omits this portion of the verse but a footnote says, "Some ancient authorities add."

Luke 24:12-NASV has this verse in brackets with a MR saying, "Some ancient MSS omit."

Luke 24:36-NASV omits a portion of this verse: "And he says to them, 'Peace be to you' " but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS insert."

Luke 24:40-This verse is COMPLETELY MISSING in the NASV text-the words (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) appear in place of this verse. The MR says, "Some MSS add vs. 40."

Luke 24:51-NASV omits a portion of this verse "and was carried up into heaven" but a MR says, "Some MSS add." A corresponding footnote in the liberal RSV says, "Many ancient authorities add."

Luke 24:52-NASV omits the words "and worshipped Him" and the MR says, "Some MSS insert." The liberal RSV footnote says, "Many ancient authorities add."

John 1:27-The words "is preferred before me" are MISSING in the NASV with NO EXPLANATION why they were deleted.

John 6:47-The words "on me" are COMPLETELY MISSING in the NASV with NO EXPLANATION.

Acts 8:37-NASV omits the entire verse and uses the now familiar (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) which says, "Later MSS insert." Those who teach the heresy of baptismal regeneration welcome this omission.

Acts 9:6-The words "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" are COMPLETELY MISSING WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

Romans 16:24-NASV OMITS THE ENTIRE VERSE. In its place is (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) which says, "Some ancient MSS add vs. 24)."

Ephesians 3:9-KJV reads, "Who created all things BY JESUS CHRlST." NASV omits "BY JESUS CHRIST" with ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION OR MARGINAL NOTE.

1 John 4:3-The KJV properly reads, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God " But the NASV reads, "And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." There is no manuscript authority cited nor any explanation given for this important change in the text-a change which even the liberal Revised Standard Version does not make.

Revelation 1:11-NASV omits the words "l am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION.

Many other specific examples could be given if space permitted. There are several very helpful publications available that provide a summary of textual differences and that also deal with the subject of Bible versions in more depth than we are able to in this leaflet. One such publication is Evaluating Versions of the New Testament by Everett W. Fowler, published by Maranatha Baptist Press; this booklet documents hundreds of changes and omissions.

There are also some very subtle and less obvious changes which have been made in the NASV text. Note the following:

Luke 24:47-The words in the KJV read "repentance AND forgiveness of sins" but the NASV reads "repentance FOR forgiveness of sins." The NASV marginal reading says, "Some MSS read 'AND forgiveness'," so they deliberately chose a rendering which raises the question of salvation by faith vs. salvation by works- an amazing decision by supposedly fundamental or evangelical scholars.

John 9:35-NASV substitutes "Son of Man" for "Son of God" with ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION.

1 Timothy 3:16-the NASV text replaces the word "God" with "He" although the MR says "Some MSS read 'God'." This is a key verse concerning the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, the NASV scholars preferred a rendering which blunts this precious truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-Here is a subtle change suggested by the marginal note rather than the text itself. This key verse concerning the complete inspiration of the Scriptures properly reads in the NASV text, "All scripture is inspired by God . . " but the MR says, "Or, possibly, 'Every scripture inspired of God is profitable...."' No citation of manuscript authority is given-but this suggested possible change does make it conform to the liberal Revised Standard Version.

Now you see it-now you don't! Maybe it's in- maybe it's out! A sleight of hand performance has been perpetrated upon unsuspecting believers by the NASV. Is this any way to handle the precious, infallible, inerrant Word of God? Of course it is true that some words and expressions in the KJV are no longer in common usage or have changed somewhat in meaning. But this is no excuse for trying to replace the KJV with a version like the NASV which updates some words and expressions but leaves out or questions the validity of many words, portions of verses, entire verses and even extensive portions as in Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.

It should be clear that no version of the Bible could ever be produced in which every word would be readily understood by everyone. But that is where cross-references, footnotes, etc., become helpful. They explain without changing the words of the text itself. God has used expository preaching and teaching and the use of Bible commentaries and concordances to instruct and build up the believers. But the purity of the text itself MUST BE PRESERVED! Let the commentaries be clearly labeled as such-they are the works of men and are subject to error. BUT LET THE BIBLE STAND SUPREME AS THE UNCHANGING WORD OF THE LIVING GOD-without the tampering minds and fingers of man.

In closing, we cite one further instance of an important change in the NASV-a change which bears directly on our responsibility as believers to separate from false teachers and doctrines:

1 Timothy 6:5-Referring to "men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth," the KJV properly concludes this verse with the clear command of God: "FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THYSELF." The NASV omits COMPLETELY these four important words (in this case again following the liberal RSV text) with absolutely NO EXPLANATION OR INDICATION THAT ANYTHING IS MISSING FROM THE TEXT.

The issue of Bible translations is not a minor issue as some seem to feel. If we do not have a sure foundation, we really have no foundation at all. Both reason and consistency demand that if one holds the NASV to be the most accurate version, then it should replace the KJV. However, many pastors, schools and religious organizations say that they will continue to use only the King James Version from the pulpit, platform and for study and memorization, yet at the same time they promote and defend the NASV which differs so greatly from the KJV and conforms so closely to other modern versions which they have repudiated.

We believe a choice can be made-AND SHOULD BE MADE! We believe the choice should be to use and recommend ONLY the King James Version of the Bible.

Several excellent books have been written on this important subject which are helpful to those who want more complete and thorough information. We have written this leaflet with the hope and prayer that it will inform God's people of the very subtle attack which is being made upon the very foundation of the Christian faith-the Bible! We urge God's people to make their own study of this matter.

-M.H. Reynolds, Editor, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE


By the way, NIV omits 64,000 words of scripture.

Hath God said??? I guess not.



 2010/11/9 17:49
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2002
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
I have some slightly different thoughts on Roman 7, but maybe compatible with what you think.



Actually no, I don't think what you said is compatible with what I was saying. I don't believe Paul is personifying anything. He is describing the wretchedness of attempting to live righteously by his own effort. Remember chapter 6 is dealing with our being dead to sin and no longer living therein. Paul shows the relationship between the law and sin and the fact that until he was dead to the law and alive in Christ, his attempts at being righteous through the weakness of his own flesh were futile. It was a wretched state to live in. Knowing the law of God, wanting to be righteous, and not finding it possible. He was only delivered from this wretchedness through Jesus Christ with whom Paul had considered himself crucified. 6,7,8 must be taken as a whole in the context of the remainder of the letter. You are right, the law was not the bad guy. It was just the vehicle by which sin came alive and we died to our own self righteousness. The law was good and holy, but it was never meant to be the thing that we keep in order to be in right relationship with God. It was a ministration of death to us, all of it, even the ten commandments. The law was only a shadow of the holiness of God.


_________________
Travis

 2010/11/9 17:56Profile
knitefall
Member



Joined: 2010/3/2
Posts: 251


 Re:

the point:


again, Repentance is the issue and always has been. Adam and Eve were given everything in the Garden. They could have continued under God's provision and not missed anything. Our God was holding nothing good back from them.


But the temptation came and they took it.


The temptation was to go their own way for provision.


You guys (and girls), IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME TODAY!
We choose to not repent of providing for self. We choose to provide our own righteousness at times, our own sanctification and even glorification etc... all through means other than God's Prescribed order. Adam and Eve chose not to repent of self provision. They thought they were missing out/ God was holding back/ they could get more in their own way. That's how we do... until we 'change our mind' which is to repent. And let God provide.


John the Baptizer arrived on scene and told everyone to Repent because the Kingdom was now HERE. He did not mean in sackcloth and ashes or the Lord-ah whould stompeth you-ah!

not at all.

He was saying to change your mind about how to be in right standing with God as the Door has now come to us and is standing right in front of us. He was simply stating that the Sacrifice for the whole world has now come and that we no longer have to follow this way of Law and Commandments under condemnation of old wine skin sacrificial systems.


Jesus said he was the greatest prophet to ever live. They all pointed to the Messiah and what He would do. If John the baptizer would have been doing the same thing as the pharisees, He would not have called him that.

John was giving the picture of what Jesus had come to do - water baptism... we are buried in Christ and Risen New w/ Him and seated (by Faith) next to the Father.


Jesus Himself made it clear that John's message was exactly right. Jesus said the same thing as John, like what? A Chapter later! And we know Jesus certainly did not come to make everyone feel condemned by keeping them under obligation to the Law! He came to keep it for us! Who was the law made for again? Not the Jews!

John's demeanor was not of a mean religious spirit. He understood the way of Grace and Mercy. Through Grace and Mercy (new Cov't) we repent of our old way of living and live into Christ and through Him. Possible all because of what He did for us at the Cross.



So biblical temptation is nothing more than to leave God's ability to provide and to go another way-

We are to -repent- of providing for self. Adam did not stay repented but chose his own way.

What is our answer? Repent and Believe by Faith.

 2010/11/9 18:02Profile









 Re:

So the "flesh" was the problem then and flesh is the problem, now.

Maybe it is because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

Because Adam was fleshly (the first man Adam was fleshly, the second man, Christ is spiritual), he was destined to fall? Is that what we are saying? Scripture does make a distinction that the "first man was fleshly". What is it trying to tell us?

Now, I believe that God wanted Adam to learn obedience through the things he suffered (deny the flesh), but instead he had one act of disobedience, that broke fellowship with God.

We are in the flesh when we are not in communion with God, then. Adam's flesh left to itself, and tempted, fell. Our flesh when not in subjection to the Holy Spirit, falls.

Still, flesh seems to work better for me than "sin nature".

I know that no man "in the flesh" can please God and no "flesh" will enter the Kingdom of God, and the Spirit leads us to put to death the deeds of the flesh.

I have never read where the Spirit leads us to put to death the "sin nature", but rather the "deeds of the flesh".

What do you think?

Blessings to you all, I am really enjoying all the feedback and working through this with you.

 2010/11/9 18:13
knitefall
Member



Joined: 2010/3/2
Posts: 251


 Re:

I think the 'SN' referred to is that inward bent that is in all of us to do evil. Think it's not there?

Put two three year old babies in the same play pen with one rubber ducky. See what happens. You DID NOT teach them to do that - it's IN them.

And it is still in us ever AFTER we are Saved by Faith.

That's why our Father did the Plan that way which totally by-passes our ability and obligation to 'hold up our end' of the deal. He kept all the law to give us a Perfect Righteousness... that we would not have to 'complete.' We keep it today by simple Faith in the Cross of Christ.

 2010/11/9 18:33Profile









 Re:

I agree. I am looking forward to my new body someday when I will be free from this corruptible body and freed from this body of flesh.

 2010/11/9 18:38
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

Really?

Think about how the two or three year olds you used in your demonstration have been raised up to that point.

They need to be fed: they cry = satisfaction.
They need emotional comfort: they cry = satisfaction
They need a diaper change: they cry = satisfaction.
They need anything: they cry = satisfaction.

What have they been taught their whole life by those who raised them? They have been taught that it's all about SELF! Not only that, they have been taught by those whom have raised them and who care for them to fend for themselves no matter what. This is what has been interestingly titled, the "I" Principle. And with conversion, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life which I now live, in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."

I guess it is in them, but they were not born with it.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 18:47Profile
knitefall
Member



Joined: 2010/3/2
Posts: 251


 Re:

AH! I thought I'd be in this all by myself!

That's exactly right!

We come out of the womb even screaming for attention! Yes indeed!

then we're told 'do this, don't do that' stand up, sit down... and all other manner of learning how to play church and be 'independent' all on our own.

That's why it's only revealed By the Spirit, who Jesus is.


flesh (carnality) cannot as in it is impossible to receive the Kingdom into itself. But God found a Way! Amen!

 2010/11/9 19:00Profile
Madefree
Member



Joined: 2010/11/7
Posts: 193
Alabama

 Re:

IF SIN WERE A SINFUL NATURE,
THEN:

by Dennnis Carroll

1. God originated SIN

2. God will punish those who have been punished for Adam's sin, because they have been punished for Adam's sin.

3. Jesus could have married a virgin and produced a holy race by natural generation

4. Man is more benevolent and just than GOD

i.e. man's idea of justice is injustice, and that of injustice is just
5. All human governments are inherently evil, for inability is never punished, and natural attributes are not considered evil.

6. The physical change that happened at the fall removed the sinner from the obligation to obey the moral law, for the moral law addresses only those able to obey it.

7. A physical change is necessary in regeneration.

8. If a physical change occurs, then a loss of identity occurs,

however, Paul was always Paul.
9. God saving man from sin would be a matter of justice and not grace

10. God would be obligated, by justice, to relieve the unfortunate, rather than be gracious to the rebel.

11. Jesus did not become Man, with a sinful nature:

Therefore, he was not tempted in all points like as we are, nor touched with the feelings of our infirmities.
12. The will is not free.

13. How could Adam and Eve Sin?

14. How could angels sin?

15. Children go to hell.

16. All aborted babies go to hell.

17. Sin is a calamity, not a crime

18, Repentance is impossible, because the conscience will never condemn the sinner of his inability.

19. Immediate repentance and submission cannot be urged immediately upon the sinner. Because He CAN"T.

20. Man is unable to repent.

21. Physical regeneration is necessary

This leads to universalism: FOR-

If Power changes one's nature in regeneration
If God is all powerful

If God is benevolent,

HE must therefore, in justice, regenerate all sinners

22. It regards the atonement of Christ as unnecessary. he did not have to die for the misfortune of men.


_________________
Mike Wright

 2010/11/9 19:06Profile
davidc
Member



Joined: 2010/8/15
Posts: 272
France

 Re: Sin Nature

Pilgrim, you write

I have never read where the Spirit leads us to put to death the "sin nature", but rather the "deeds of the flesh".

What do you think?

I think you are right, because the sin nature was put to death in Christ - He was made sin for us. On our part we have to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ.

David


_________________
david

 2010/11/9 19:26Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy