King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

So... no one alive or most of people? It is a difference

Ok I'll change it to no one alive today has the pure word of God because the originals don't exist anymore AND furthermore most people can't read Hebrew and Greek anyway.

 

[fredoheaven]

Well, I am Canadian and we were taught British "English." In other words, I use "u" in neighbour, I add "ly" to words like "slow" when they are used as adverbs, more or less English English, if you get my drift. I have been drilled as to parts of speech, verb forms, and all the aspects of English English.

And NO, I cannot read KJV and have a clue what it says. Perhaps your problem is that your English is already a foreign language, so the KJV is just another step in the same direction.

I speak modern English. I do not speak an English from 400 years ago, complete with archaic and obsolete words. Words that do not exist in English anymore. So, I read modern versions, which are in my heart language. Perhaps you should read Tagalog, or maybe whatever dialect you speak, and then you would understand the Bible better?

Again, the KJV is extremely difficult for me to read, because I speak modern British English. I do not speak 400 year old English. I am repeating myself, because maybe if you read it more than once, it will make sense?

We won't even get into the fact that KJV English is not even 17th century English. The translators tried to follow Greek word order, on occasion, which means they get their word order wrong, even for that era's English.

Kind of like in French, it would be "La maison blanche." We would translate that as "the white house" in English. But, the way the KJV translators would translate it would be something like "the house white" and then they would congratulate themselves they got the word order right.

The receptive language is as important than the original languages. Because if we do not understand it in our own language, the whole point of translating is lost. We need to understand it in our language, which for NONE of us is 17th century and slightly convoluted English.

Yep, I am not saying you need to speak the same as from 400 years past and that I would not force you to read KJV but don’t tell me it is complete with archaic and obsolete words. You wrote/posted many English that was even used during the past 400 years. Don’t you ever tell me you didn’t?

Anyway, your offer of vernacular language is just fine for me but I haven’t seen one complete Tagalog translation of KJV, so I used the KJV English Bible.

I’m glad of you for having said the importance of receptive language other than the “original languages”. For me, I have to stick with the English KJV for now, than that of the Hebrew, Araimic or Greek to which I am not acquainted of/speak of/ write of. The irony is that even modern English words like that of ESV in particular are going back to the traditional KJV English in a certain point.

 

[Angela53510]

Hard to read and understand? Not with the Holy Spirit's help. Besides, the beauty about the KJV is it defines itself. One doesn't have to go to concordances or use the Greek game.

Language must first of all be functional. It must communicate before you worry about some imagined "beauty" of the KJV. I don't happen to like Shakespeare either. Because it makes little sense to me. So, the KJV is NOT functional to me. Because I cannot understand it.


As for the "Greek game," probably the use of Lexicons is what you are referring to? Personally, no one has to read Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible. They just have to read one of the many modern translations that are available. While there are sometimes some issues that theologians debate, for edification, encouragement, teaching and training, to say nothing of the gospel of salvation, any translation from ESV to HCSB to NIV to RSV to NASB etc etc can do the job, without a single word of Greek or Hebrew.

I had nothing to read or memorize except the KJV as a child growing up. Because of that, I missed the gospel message. Now, that is the opposite of what some of you KJV Onlyists are saying. In fact, I think it is much harder to be saved reading the KJV than a modern version.

But then, I am not caught in a Satanic delusion which says that the KJV is the only version which saves someone, am I?

 

[KJV1611]

i still love you too, but Strong's isn't a dictionary. It's a concordance. It lists usage specifically in the kjv, so where kjv is inaccurate, so is Strong's.

Ok then what ever dictionary people use to say a better translation would be blah blah blah... And yes MOST English speakers read English bibles and go to a Greek or Hebrew word definition books when they run across scripture that they disagree with. And I do love you too brother!

 

[KJV1611]

I wonder why is Strong still the first option on for example biblehub.com about the meaning of the Greek word... as if it would be some authoritative dictionary.

It is authority to some people.

 

[KJV1611]

As a pastor, I have seen many unbelievers understand the Bible so very well that, upon hearing it preached, they got down on their knees, confessed to God that they were sinners, and asked Jesus to save them.

The pharisees knew the scriptures better than anyone, I wonder why they didn't get it. Jesus spoke the spoke the scriptures that the Pharisees knew directly to the Pharisees and Jesus said they couldn't hear HIS WORD in his speach. One of my favorite verses btw.

John 8:43 KJV
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

 

[KJV1611]

And there is the crux of the problem. Any item should never be worshipped. You should know that.

Our worship should only be for God.

Anything else you worship is an idol... and God is a jealous God.... again, you should know that.

I'm saddened by your admission, but not entirely surprised.

So the spirit of Christ in the written word speaks to me and that's considered idol worship? The bible says the word of God is ALIVE and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.... is it?

 

[KJV1611]

I think you have some good points in your posts.

However, you are comparing the LXX, which is in Greek, using English. Perhaps it would be better to compare this verse in Greek - LXX to Mark? The LXX is incredibly difficult in many places. It is a form of Greek that is 300-400 years older than when the NT was written (Mark being one of the earliest NT documents!)

In other words, the writers of the NT, may well have viewed the LXX somewhat as I view the KJV. Basically difficult to read. Languages always change, and certainly the writers of the NT were not obsessed with perfection and accuracy, like we are today.

Or are you implying the KJV is right, and the the LXX is not? Perhaps following a changed and updated 15 century Masoretic text is the reason for the inaccuracy in the KJV?

PS if you put the Scripture addresses in, it would help me look verses up much better. Isaiah has 66 books, you know!

I talked about the LXX because it was brought up in my discussion with Trofimus. I'm not a supporter of the LXX and I don't use it because in the small amount of time I've spent reading it I have found many mistakes.

My position is that the KJV Old Testament doesn't match the New Testament word for word because the New Testament isn't qouting the Old Testament. The last verses Trofimus and I spoke about was Daniel 9:13 where Daniel says "as it is written".

Daniel 9:13 KJV
As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

 

[KJV1611]

You still didn't answer my original question, what is the difference between being born again and salvation?

Saved - Salvation from sin.

Matthew 1:21 KJV
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Born Again - the birth of the (capital S) Spirit. That Spirit is birthed by the word of God.

John 3:5 KJV
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Saved is salvation from our sins while the second birth is the birth of the Spirit of Christ in the believer through the incorruptible word of God.

Edit to add: Salvation is not the second birth and the second birth is not salvation. It is possible to be born again of corruptible seed, but one born again of corruptible seed can not see nor enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[KJV1611]

I've been doing some further research, and my conclusion, is that you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. You are focusing on one word which I assume to be kai, but it could be the post-positive de, and some how coming up with TWO teachings.

Except in Greek, καί kai, can be epexegetical. That is, instead of meaning two different teachings, as in a copulative sense, (which means adding - one plus one and getting two!) instead, it may well be saying, "namely."

In other words, "teaching for doctrines, NAMELY the doctrines of man." This would make it exactly the same thing.

In fact, you have not even quoted your own KJV text correctly. I would suggest you need to either learn the original languages, or stop engaging in these discussions, using wrong examples and wrong assumptions.


Language is inexact in any generation. The fact is, all the modern versions assume singular - not two teachings.

Where do you get this stuff from? Some KJV Only website, I would assume, of people who also have little knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or even English.

(By the way, KJV is not wrong, but I doubt the LXX is either! Just a bad translation of the word "kai" into English!)

I'm glad that you can see the problem with the LXX. I'm not straining at anything, I was showing Trofimus that the LXX DOES NOT match Mark 7:7

Mark 7:7 KJV
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Isaiah 29:13
"And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men."

(LXX)


You have rightly pointed out that there are not 2 teachings in that verse as the LXX states it as 2 statements. That is what I was trying to point out to Trofimus.

I have no idea what you mean by using wrong examples and wrong assumptions.

 

[KJV1611]

I have received my salvation and have been born again by the Spirit of God, He is able to do that. He dwells in me and I am His temple. I have a relationship with the creator of the universe. I will not reduce that to a relationship with my bible, no matter what version it may be.

Could you post the verse that says we are born again by the Spirit of God? I know the bible says we are born again by the Spirit, but it doesn't say Spirit of God. It could be the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ... either way, that Spirit is birthed in us by the word of God per 1 Peter 1:23.

1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[graceNpeace]

So the spirit of Christ in the written word speaks to me and that's considered idol worship? The bible says the word of God is ALIVE and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.... is it?

It is if you claim that this is possible only with a single translation...

 

[KJV1611]

James strong was part of their deception, he was brought into the committee by masonic occultist Philip Schaff....Strong started his work in the early 1850s for the very purpose of correcting the errors in the KJB..His translation that was realized in 1901(ASV) was of corrupted text..They all sought to diminish the Deity of Christ, and desolve the truine nature of the Godhead consisting of 3 persons, amongst other goals as well..these were basically the forerunners of modern day Universalism

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew...pter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf

I've always thought Strong was wolf in sheeps clothing because what ding bat would care about Greek and Hebrew words when God has given us his word in a language we can easily understand. All he did was destroy the once strong faith in the innerant word of God. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

 

[limey410]

Could you post the verse that says we are born again by the Spirit of God? I know the bible says we are born again by the Spirit, but it doesn't say Spirit of God. It could be the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ... either way, that Spirit is birthed in us by the word of God per 1 Peter 1:23.

1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

The same Spirit that rose Jesus from the grave in Romans 8 v 11. The same Spirit that lives in you. The same Spirit that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus of. That would be the Spirit of God, what other Spirit are you referring too? The implications are that it is the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. I am not as scholarly as some, but I can believe that when Jesus and God are referring to the Spirit, that they are referring to themself. The Holy Spirit.

 

[limey410]

Saved - Salvation from sin.

Matthew 1:21 KJV
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Born Again - the birth of the (capital S) Spirit. That Spirit is birthed by the word of God.

John 3:5 KJV
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Saved is salvation from our sins while the second birth is the birth of the Spirit of Christ in the believer through the incorruptible word of God.

Edit to add: Salvation is not the second birth and the second birth is not salvation. It is possible to be born again of corruptible seed, but one born again of corruptible seed can not see nor enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus died for the propitiation of sins for the whole world. The forgiveness of sins is not salvation. The forgiveness of sins then allows God to restore the Spirit that was lost in Adam. Without the forgiveness of sins the Holy Spirit would leave us the first time we sinned.
We are born in to sin, spiritually dead.
Propitiation allows God to dwell in us through His Spirit and we are resurrected from eternal death. That is salvation. Or being born again. Resurrection from death through the Holy Spirit.

 

[graceNpeace]

I've always thought Strong was wolf in sheeps clothing because what ding bat would care about Greek and Hebrew words when God has given us his word in a language we can easily understand. All he did was destroy the once strong faith in the innerant word of God. Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

Are you sure that Kennedy's assassination is not mixed up in all this?
Are you that susceptible to any silly stupid conspiracy theory?

 

[KJV1611]

I'm glad you brought this up. For one thing, this phrase "born again." The word Jesus uses is anothen. ἄνωθεν, which means "from above, again."

Here is what ESV quotes, which I believe is similar to KJV.

"This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c]7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’"

However, the footnotes of the ESV are clear. In verse three ἄνωθεν, anothen means the following:

b. John 3:3Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7.


So, when Jesus uses the word in Greek ἄνωθεν, anothen, is he saying "born again" or "born from above?" It is obvious that Nicodemus thinks it is actual birth from his questions. But was Jesus telling him we needed to be born from above, of the Spirit, or born again in our flesh? Reflecting on the passage, I would have to say that Jesus is not saying "born again" but rather "born from above."
My commentaries have some interesting notes about this passage. The reference to ἄνωθεν anothen, "born again/born from above" is startling and unexpected. But either way, it speaks of a new beginning and a decisive inner transformation in a person's life.

Now, the notion of divine birth would have made sense to someone with a Hellenistic background, (and the later Hellenistic readers of John would have easily recognized it!) since divine regeneration was a frequent idea in Greek philosophy. But, when the one questioning is a Pharisee, it would be better to look at Judaism to find the meaning of the words. Proselytes to Judaism were often called "newly born children." But the language Jesus uses seems unusual to Nicodemus. By the word ἄνωθεν anothen, Jesus means "not an amendment, but the renewal of the whole nature."

But since Jesus sees the word ἄνωθεν anothen- one way, "born from above" and Nicodemus sees it another "born again" John has purposefully provided us with a misunderstanding of the Gospel. In order to enter the Kingdom, in order to understand divine revelations, such as this one, one must have an experience that transports beyond the mere observation of '"signs". Divine signs are ambitious without divine aid. (John is about the "signs" Jesus did!)

So far from ignoring what Nicodemus has said, Jesus says, "Unless someone is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This means that just as it is impossible to do what Jesus has been doing UNLESS (ἐὰν μή) God is with him, so it is impossible to "see the kingdom of God" UNLESS one is born from above. And Jesus uses the plural in verse 7, meaning he has gone from Nicodemus specifically to tis τις or - anyone or certain ones.

So, therefore, Jesus is specifically saying that God is the one who causes us be born again. Certainly we cannot reach into the heavens, and make ourselves born from above. Anymore than, as Nicodemus rightly says, we cannot make ourselves be born from our mother's wombs. But Jesus was speaking of a spiritual rebirth, from God, not a fleshly rebirth, of the flesh.

But, this so far does not deal with the issue of salvation, and its relationship to being "born from above."

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matt 1:21 NIV

The name "Jesus" means "The Lord saves." It is the Greek form of Joshua, which is Hebrew. So literally, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Jesus also says the way to be saved is to be born from again, of the Spirit, going back to John 3:2-7.

Now, there is more to the gospel, in that God is the one who gives us faith, and obviously gives us a new spirit, and a new heart. Paul says,

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old has gone, the new has come." 2 Cor. 5:17

We must be born from above, because we are spiritually dead. We are spiritually dead, because we are sinners.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23

Jesus is the one who saves or rescues us from our utterly dead state, through the power of the Holy Spirit, who gives us faith and causes us to be born from above.

So are the terms "born from above" and "salvation" the same? Well, for me, they show different aspects of the same gospel. We are born again of the Spirit. It comes from God. It is not of ourselves.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph. 2:8-10


When we are born again, God gives us the power to repent of our sins, and he saves us from those sins. Thus, salvation is from God, and being born from above is from God. You cannot get much closer in meaning than that. The gospel of salvation, is that God causes us to be born from above, and we have a new spirit, and we are new creatures, adopted by faith into the Kingdom of God!

What does ἀναγεννάω in 1 Peter 1:23 mean?

 

[limey410]

Put simply.
Bad news: sin and death
Good news: forgiveness of sin and life everlasting, we are saved from eternal death.

 

[KJV1611]

What does ἀναγεννάω in 1 Peter 1:23 mean?

Disregard, I just saw where you spoke about this earlier, I will comment there.

 

[KJV1611]

Anothen, is NOT the word used in 1 Peter 1:23. It is ἀναγεγεννημένοι - which literally, translated, means "having being born again." It is a Perfect, Passive Participle. Something that was done in the completed past.

In fact, I did NOT deal with this word in what I wrote in my last post, because it is NOT anothen. ἄνωθεν means "from above." It does NOT mean - "born of the KJV text." Or born again as in literally born again from the flesh. Anothen means BORN FROM ABOVE if you are Jesus, or BORN AGAIN if you are Nicodemus.

Or, you could say that every translation is the Living Word!

"διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος" 1 Peter 1:23b

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23 NIV.

"since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;" 1 Peter 1:23 ESV

Amazing! You just can't fix stupid!

How many spiritual births are there? At one point you say that we are born from above ἄνωθεν then in another place you say we have been born again ἀναγεγεννημένοι by the word of God.

What is the difference between being born from above and born again by the word of God?