KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

Matthew 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Hebrews 10:12-13 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

Notice that Jesus isn’t being used as God’s right hand, but is sitting on God’s right hand waiting and expecting God to handle the enemies for him.
The things you refer to are not in the context of Jesus’ teaching about “thy” right hand.

It is an analogy referring to your own body being a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to God.
Which act of faith requires a sacrificial love like Jesus proved to have.
You remember, Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus.

No.
But in that we who follow Jesus are expected to suffer as he did there is likeness.

Where does the verse below say anything about my body being a living sacrifice? Does being a living sacrifice for Jesus keep you out of hell?

Matthew 5:30 King James Version (KJV)

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

[Joseppi]

Where does the verse below say anything about my body being a living sacrifice? Does being a living sacrifice for Jesus keep you out of hell?

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

I have explained the analogy twice.

 

[KJV1611]

I have explained the analogy twice.

Why do you call it an anology? I don't see "blah blah blah IS LIKE blah blah blah".

Joseppi you can't change the words of the bible and expect to arrive at the truth. That verse can only be read one of two ways - 1) Cut off your literal right hand or 2) Cut off your figurative right hand.

There is no "other" view... the text says what it says.

 

[Joseppi]

I don’t find the analogy of the single eye, and offending hand to be hard to grasp.

Each disciple of Jesus needs to follow the scriptures and ignore the corrupt scriptures and false teachers.

And if your body is preventing you from following Jesus then put it to death as prescribed by Jesus and the scriptures.

 

[KJV1611]

I don’t find the analogy of the single eye, and offending hand to be hard to grasp.

Each disciple of Jesus needs to follow the scriptures and ignore the corrupt scriptures and false teachers.

And if your body is preventing you from following Jesus then put it to death as prescribed by Jesus and the scriptures.

What words in the verse we have been talking about make that verse an analogy?

 

[John146]

I don’t find the analogy of the single eye, and offending hand to be hard to grasp.

Each disciple of Jesus needs to follow the scriptures and ignore the corrupt scriptures and false teachers.

And if your body is preventing you from following Jesus then put it to death as prescribed by Jesus and the scriptures.

True or False

Is it better to go through life without an eye than to end up in hell with two good eyes?

What's the teaching? The things in the flesh that are experienced can lead to sin which leads to hell. It's impossible to escape sin for all have sinned, even in thought. We need Jesus.

 

[KJV1611]

True or False

Is it better to go through life without an eye than to end up in hell with two good eyes?

What's the teaching? The things in the flesh that are experienced can lead to sin which leads to hell. It's impossible to escape sin for all have sinned, even in thought. We need Jesus.

Faith in Jesus saves us from hell period. Gouging out an offensive eye or cutting off an offensive hand has no bearing on our eternal destination.

 

[Joseppi]

Why do you call it an anology?

Because an analogy compares to similar things.
Whereas, a metaphor compares unlike things.

Joseppi, you can't change the words of the bible and expect to arrive at the truth. That verse can only be read one of two ways - 1) Cut off your literal right hand or 2) Cut off your figurative right hand.

My point is simple.

Jesus chose cutting one’s own hand off to emphasis the literalness of the spiritual need to have the body of flesh put to death unto salvation.

The reason he did this is because we who follow him might not take mortification of the flesh seriously unless we realize the threat is as real and dangerous to our souls as would require actual amputation.

The thing to note is that Jesus didn’t just teach this truth but actually did sacrifice his own body on the cross for us.

But, we must join him in his suffering, death and burial, if we are to be resurrected to new life in the spirit, of the Spirit.

Jesus doesn’t want to us to think he isn’t speaking of our literal need to deny ourselves, pick up our cross daily and follow Jesus by the sacrifice our bodies to God so that we walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.

 

[John146]

Faith in Jesus saves us from hell period. Gouging out an offensive eye or cutting off an offensive hand has no bearing on our eternal destination.

Did the Matthew audience know about the cross?

 

[Joseppi]

What words in the verse we have been talking about make that verse an analogy?

The real hand, the real sacrifice of it, and the real need to mortify the flesh.

This is taught in the Old Testament where we find Saul the first king of Israel failed to destroy all that belonged to the Amalekites.
Samuel asked Saul if he had done as commanded of God and Saul said he had.
But Samuel asked, What meanest the bleating of sheep?
And Saul claimed he was serving God by not doing as commanded because he had a better way.
Samuel slew Agag and all the sheep.
The Amalekites and the sheep are like the flesh that must be put to death.

We see also that Israel failed to remove all enemies out of the land. Etc.

God is serious about the flesh being put to death. I mean it’s obvious that the flesh must die since all die a literal death.

 

[KJV1611]

Because an analogy compares to similar things.
Whereas, a metaphor compares unlike things.

My point is simple.

Jesus chose cutting one’s own hand off to emphasis the literalness of the spiritual need to have the body of flesh put to death unto salvation.

The reason he did this is because we who follow him might not take mortification of the flesh seriously unless we realize the threat is as real and dangerous to our souls as would require actual amputation.

The thing to note is that Jesus didn’t just teach this truth but actually did sacrifice his own body on the cross for us.

But, we must join him in his suffering, death and burial, if we are to be resurrected to new life in the spirit, of the Spirit.

Jesus doesn’t want to us to think he isn’t speaking of our literal need to deny ourselves, pick up our cross daily and follow Jesus by the sacrifice our bodies to God so that we walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.

It sounds to me like you haven't crucified your own flesh yet because you're still trying to please God by YOUR works of the flesh.

You see works salvation in that verse - something I MUST DO to please God.
I see the verse as grace, something Jesus did for me so that I don't have to do works to please God.

And not only that, you're making an analogy where an analogy doesn't exist. The text itself determines whether it's an analogy or not, not our opinions.

 

[KJV1611]

Did the Matthew audience know about the cross?

Well if Abraham knew it and saw it, I would think the audience knew about it.

 

[KJV1611]

The real hand, the real sacrifice of it, and the real need to mortify the flesh.

This is taught in the Old Testament where we find Saul the first king of Israel failed to destroy all that belonged to the Amalekites.
Samuel asked Saul if he had done as commanded of God and Saul said he had.
But Samuel asked, What meanest the bleating of sheep?
And Saul claimed he was serving God by not doing as commanded because he had a better way.
Samuel slew Agag and all the sheep.
The Amalekites and the sheep are like the flesh that must be put to death.

We see also that Israel failed to remove all enemies out of the land. Etc.

God is serious about the flesh being put to death. I mean it’s obvious that the flesh must die since all die a literal death.

I don't debate works salvation.

 

[trofimus]

It sounds to me like you haven't crucified your own flesh yet because you're still trying to please God by YOUR works of the flesh.

Is "not sinning" or "loving" etc a work of the flesh? I do not think so...

I think that "work of the flesh" is used for Jewish habits/customs/physical law. Not about spiritual fruit we should pursue to have to please God.

 

[KJV1611]

Is "not sinning" or "loving" etc a work of the flesh? I do not think so...

I think that "work of the flesh" is used for Jewish habits/customs/physical law. Not about spiritual fruit we should pursue to have to please God.

I agree, those things are a work that God does in us.

 

[Joseppi]

I don't debate works salvation.

Off topic anyway.

 

[Joseppi]

I agree, those things are a work that God does in us.

Your works will be judged regardless.
What do you do by faith?

 

[KJV1611]

Off topic anyway.

By the way I'm against you, I just try to see where people are coming from and why they believe what they believe.
My goal is to show how important it is to believe that every word is right and every word matters. If we change words words or interpret passage then we miss the real meaning that was intended.

 

[Joseppi]

By the way I'm not against you, I just try to see where people are coming from and why they believe what they believe.
My goal is to show how important it is to believe that every word is right and every word matters. If we change words words or interpret passage then we miss the real meaning that was intended.

I understand and added the “not” to your first sentence.
It is important.
And, I’m not a works salvation believer either.
But, I also don’t consider works of faith to be evil.

 

[Dino246]

By the way where did you get "if your right hand causes you to sin"?

ESV and HCSB both have this phrasing.

The KJV says to cut off THY right hand not YOUR right hand. But if you insist that Jesus is teaching one to cut off body parts to save themselves from hell, that's your right.

"Your" is not so different from "thy" and, in my view, is not relevant to your claim of metaphorical interpretation.

Have you not read in the bible that Jesus is an ofence to his people?

Yes; I can see the plausibility of the metaphor. However, the context of the two verses in Matthew 5 is a discussion of heinous sin: murder and adultery. It's a stretch to take the reference to "thy right hand" and state categorically that it is a reference to Jesus' death.

In response to the question you asked in a couple of other posts, the physical removal of a hand or an eye could not "save" anyone. However, if we take the literal meaning as "avoid sin by any means necessary", it may be considered an extreme but not ridiculous approach. Knowing that the removal of a body part doesn't change the heart, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone; I'd steer them to the finished work of Jesus.