The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
19,201
6,608
113
62
To say that we are not living at the end now or the last days is to have blinders on.
Besides, knowledge is still increasing today.
The Lord our God is not the God of the dead (a God of the past) but of the living.
His Word is still living and active today with the King James Bible.

...
This just a few nonconnected thoughts. You can swallow the elephant, but not the gnat?
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
Nowhere am I stating that dictionaries contain answers to everyone's questions about the Bible.
Not even the Bible has all the answers to detailed questions like the ones you asked.
My having to state this to you makes it appear like you either just arrived on planet Earth or you are completely new to the faith, etc.

Also, it seems like you do not believe in the Trinity. If so, that is absolutely heretical to deny the Trinity, which is clearly taught in Scripture (See: 1 John 5:7 in the KJV).


....
OR... You have never been in the company of a competent Pastor-teacher to know there is hope.
Everyone will be guessing until they find one of the few good teachers God will provide each generation.

The few constitute the strait and narrow path.
A path which will have its pressures in its journey to finding freedom (life).
Only a few will find it. Jesus said so.

And, James pointed it out what it means..

James 3:1
Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment.

God will provide a few good teachers to provide for us the answers we will need to overcome the evils that will beset our generation.

Yet, Paul warns us that the confusion we may suffer from comes from not being able to discern who the few may be, and will assume we all are all just caught in a free for all to find ways to make one's own subjective analysis dominate over the other.

Not many. Only a few will be teachers endorsed by God!

2 Timothy 4:3​
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
That is why we have the mess we see today.

To find a good teacher is to have found grace from the Lord.
Human will and determination to find truth is not enough.
Must be guided by the Spirit = grace.
Arrogance and pride is our enemy...
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,784
113
What do you mean by "begotten" according to an English dictionary?
Please take note that when you look up "begotten" it leads you to the word "beget."
This is because "begotten" is the past participle of "beget."

Generally the word "beget" means to become the father of a child.
There is a second definition that means to cause something or make it happen.
For example: Desperation begets recklessness.

https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/beget

In the Bible, the word "beget" is not commonly used in the way that Longman’s dictionary describes (e.g., "to cause something or make it happen" as in "Generosity begets gratitude"). The Biblical usage typically refers to either a literal or spiritual generation, such as the birth of children or spiritual transformation or birth into joining God's people. The Bible tends to use other words for the concept of one thing causing another, like "bring forth" or "produce," but the specific metaphorical usage of "beget" as simply causing something to happen isn't prevalent in the KJV (or the dominant English Bible that existed for hundreds of years).


....
The problem with the English word “begotten” is that it is not a correct translation for “monogenes”. “Species-unique”, though awkward, fits better. “One-of-a-kind” is a colloquial rendition.
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,826
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
I am not in disagreement that the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) is also called the "Son."
John 3:17 says that the Father sent His Son into the world.
This does mean there a body before the Incarnation.
Would it be correct for me to assume that you really meant to say:

"This does not mean there was a body before the Incarnation."

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In verse 16, 'begotten' is about Bethlehem and 'gave' is about the cross. In verse 17, the "sense" of 'sent not his Son' is one of being after-the-fact - it does not mean that Jesus was the 'Son of God' outside of the virgin [conception and] birth. The sonship of Jesus is defined by - and rests totally 100% in - Him being born into the human race.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Monogenes
The eighth edition of H.G Liddel & R.Scott published in 1901 has the entry of Only-begotten, single at the same time as unique, however, earlier Greek English Lexicon by I. Lowndes 1837 has the meaning of only-begotten, the work of Dr. Domegan published in 1832 say of monogenes as “begotten” or produced by the flesh in a theological sense.
Now, is unique an appropriate translation for the word monogenes? No! What seems to be the uniqueness of the virgin birth? Unique means being the only one of its kind, unlike anything else. The birth of Christ through Mary is not unique but a miracle work of the Holy Spirit. Uniqueness has no divine intervention, unlike a miracle. It could also be well said the sons of God were produced by the evil spirits with the unnatural union of human women. So it could not be as unique as called since spirit beings could produce “sons of God” only it was a perversion.
Monogenes never refers to the uniqueness of species either as this has a different Greek which is
1727872684109.png
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,441
1,213
113
Then the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Why do You speak to the people in parables?”
He replied, “The knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you,
but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does
not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.’ In them the
prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever
seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their
ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.’



Matthew 13:16-17
:)
Jacob, surnamed "ISRAEL", represents spiritual Israel, in whom God has blinded the eyes of most of them to the understanding of the doctrine of Christ. because they began to worship idols instead of him, and they are known as "the lost sheep of the house spiritual Israel, but God has left a remnant of spiritual Israel that has been revealed, by the Holy Spirit, the truths of Christ's doctrine
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Would it be correct for me to assume that you really meant to say:

"This does not mean there was a body before the Incarnation."

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In verse 16, 'begotten' is about Bethlehem and 'gave' is about the cross. In verse 17, the "sense" of 'sent not his Son' is one of being after-the-fact - it does not mean that Jesus was the 'Son of God' outside of the virgin [conception and] birth. The sonship of Jesus is defined by - and rests totally 100% in - Him being born into the human race.
I agree with you that the term 'begotten' in reference to the Son pertains to the Incarnation (or Him having a physical body), specifically through His birth by the Virgin Mary.

I agree with you that the word 'gave' in verse 16 refers to God the Father giving His Son in the context of the cross. This is emphasized by the use of 'begotten Son,' which signifies His 'incarnate Son.'

As for the Living Word (second person of the Trinity) having the title of "the Son" before the Incarnation:

Well, I want to make it clear that I believe that the title of "the Son" for the Living Word before the Incarnation is a prophetic title only.. The Living Word is the second person of the Trinity (Godhead) and has always existed from eternity's past. I do not hold the view that Jesus either time-traveled back to the past, or possessed His physical incarnate body before being born through the virgin Mary.

Anyway, to prove my case that the Living Word had the title of "the Son" before His Incarnation, check out my breakdown here:

Explaining How "the Living Word" Possessed the Title of "the Son" Before the Incarnation:

1. John 3:13 – The Son of man came down from Heaven
  • Verse: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
  • Explanation: Jesus refers to Himself as "the Son of man" and clearly states that He "came down from heaven." This shows that He had this title before His incarnation. His pre-existence in Heaven is emphasized here, and the present tense "which is in heaven" hints at His ongoing divine connection even while He was on Earth. This verse introduces His divine origin, showing He was already the Son before being born.
2. John 3:17 – The Son was sent into the world through the Incarnation
  • Verse: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
  • Explanation: The phrase "God sent his Son into the world" points to the Son being sent from Heaven to Earth through the Incarnation, specifically His birth by the virgin Mary. This is not just referring to Jesus going out into the world during His ministry; rather, it signifies His entrance into the world through His birth. When we consider verse 13, it becomes clear that Jesus was already the Son in Heaven before He was sent into the world. This goes beyond verse 16’s focus on Him being the "begotten Son" and highlights His pre-existence and divine role before His incarnation.
3. John 16:28 – Jesus came from Heaven and returned to Heaven
  • Verse: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."
  • Explanation: Jesus explains the full cycle of His divine mission. "I came forth from the Father" confirms His pre-existence in Heaven before His incarnation, and "come into the world" refers to His entrance into the world via the Incarnation. His statement "I leave the world" refers to His return to Heaven, completing the circle. This reinforces that "coming into the world" refers to His descent from Heaven to Earth through the Incarnation, not just His public ministry on Earth.

I hope this helps, and may God bless you, and your family, my friend.


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
The problem with the English word “begotten” is that it is not a correct translation for “monogenes”. “Species-unique”, though awkward, fits better. “One-of-a-kind” is a colloquial rendition.
Again, just ask people in Greece who are native to living there. It is only the Modern scholars who invented this idea in German Rationalism and did not become popular here in the US until 1940s.

So if you lived before the 1940s and you were not modernistic German rationalist, you would not be in any kind of disagreement with me on this. It is only in these last days things have changed.


....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
OR... You have never been in the company of a competent Pastor-teacher to know there is hope.
Everyone will be guessing until they find one of the few good teachers God will provide each generation.

The few constitute the strait and narrow path.
A path which will have its pressures in its journey to finding freedom (life).
Only a few will find it. Jesus said so.

And, James pointed it out what it means..

James 3:1
Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment.

God will provide a few good teachers to provide for us the answers we will need to overcome the evils that will beset our generation.

Yet, Paul warns us that the confusion we may suffer from comes from not being able to discern who the few may be, and will assume we all are all just caught in a free for all to find ways to make one's own subjective analysis dominate over the other.

Not many. Only a few will be teachers endorsed by God!

2 Timothy 4:3​
For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
That is why we have the mess we see today.

To find a good teacher is to have found grace from the Lord.
Human will and determination to find truth is not enough.
Must be guided by the Spirit = grace.
Arrogance and pride is our enemy...
Right, when you do not deal with the truth of Bible verses I have shown to you (which are plain in what they say), and you ignore dictionaries, then there really is no point in discussing the Word of God further. The itching ears syndrome has set in. You have chosen to make the Word of God say what you desire it to say, dear sir. Teachers can be either good or bad. If you find good teachers, that is a blessing in these last days (Which is rare and not common). What is more paramount is our own acceptance of what the Bible says and asking the Spirit to be guided into all truth (even when we may not like that truth or it doesn't make sense to us at first). So far, in our discussion, I do not see you as a truth seeker and being honest with yourself about what the Bible and dictionaries say. Maybe that will change someday and I pray that will happen for you. Maybe you will research history one day and realize that the Modern Bible Movement is corrupt. I don't know. Maybe that will never happen for you because you don't want to see it. Only the Lord knows your heart and mind on such matters. So I will leave you to the Lord. Let the Lord rebuke you to see the truth of which I speak of here.

I say this all in love of course.

May God's good ways shine upon you today.


....
....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
This just a few nonconnected thoughts. You can swallow the elephant, but not the gnat?
To you, they are not connected. From my perspective, my words which allude to different Scripture verses are all too clear.

Anyway, critics of the King James Bible often focus on trivial details, like: "straining at gnats," while ignoring serious doctrinal errors in Modern Bibles. For example, they may highlight minor concerns like the use of "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4, a term that doesn’t alter core doctrine. At the same time, they accept major doctrinal issues in Modern Bibles, such as the change in James 3:2, where the KJV refers to how we offend others in many ways, but Modern Bibles say we stumble in many ways. Additionally, the doctrine of fasting is watered-down in Modern Bibles, as seen in passages like Matthew 17:21, Mark 9:29, 1 Corinthians 7:5, and Acts 10:30. They also omit key words in Romans 8:1 about walking "not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In doing so, they “swallow a camel” of doctrinal error while nitpicking at insignificant details (Matthew 23:24).


....
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
Right, when you do not deal with the truth of Bible verses I have shown to you (which are plain in what they say), and you ignore dictionaries..
...
I pray you find out for yourself, that what you have been doing as to find answers, is not the way to finding the answers we need
to live and grow in grace and knowledge.
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
To you, they are not connected. From my perspective, my words which allude to different Scripture verses are all too clear.

Anyway, critics of the King James Bible often focus on trivial details, like: "straining at gnats," while ignoring serious doctrinal errors in Modern Bibles. For example, they may highlight minor concerns like the use of "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4, a term that doesn’t alter core doctrine. At the same time, they accept major doctrinal issues in Modern Bibles, such as the change in James 3:2, where the KJV refers to how we offend others in many ways, but Modern Bibles say we stumble in many ways. Additionally, the doctrine of fasting is watered-down in Modern Bibles, as seen in passages like Matthew 17:21, Mark 9:29, 1 Corinthians 7:5, and Acts 10:30. They also omit key words in Romans 8:1 about walking "not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." In doing so, they “swallow a camel” of doctrinal error while nitpicking at insignificant details (Matthew 23:24).


....
Good bye, sir....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Would it be correct for me to assume that you really meant to say:

"This does not mean there was a body before the Incarnation."

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

In verse 16, 'begotten' is about Bethlehem and 'gave' is about the cross. In verse 17, the "sense" of 'sent not his Son' is one of being after-the-fact - it does not mean that Jesus was the 'Son of God' outside of the virgin [conception and] birth. The sonship of Jesus is defined by - and rests totally 100% in - Him being born into the human race.
(Continued from my other post to you):

4. John 6:14, 38-40 – The Prophet who came into the world from Heaven to save
  • Verses: "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." (John 6:14)
  • "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)
  • "And this is the Father's will... that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39-40)
  • Explanation: After the miraculous feeding of the 5,000, the crowd recognized Jesus as "that prophet that should come into the world" (John 6:14), acknowledging Him as the long-expected Messiah. However, Jesus clarified their understanding by saying, "I came down from heaven" (John 6:38), emphasizing His divine origin. He further explained that His mission was to save those given to Him by the Father, offering eternal life and ensuring their resurrection on the last day (John 6:39-40). This underscores His role as the Savior, coming down from Heaven to fulfill God’s will.
  • Bonus Verse: In Luke 9:56, Jesus states, "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." This reinforces the purpose of His coming from Heaven—He came to save humanity, not to condemn or bring earthly destruction.
5. John 11:27 – Martha declares Jesus as the Son of God who came into the world
  • Verse: "She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
  • Explanation: In this passage, Martha confesses her belief that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of God," and adds that He is the One who "should come into the world." This declaration aligns with earlier statements, reinforcing that Jesus is not just a prophet or a special figure, but the Son of God who came down from Heaven. Martha’s words further highlight that His coming into the world refers to His divine origin and mission through the Incarnation, affirming His heavenly identity as the Son even before He was born.

Side Note

While John 17:18 states, "As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world," suggesting that the phrase "sent into the world" can refer to public evangelism, the weight of Scripture on Jesus being "sent into the world" is overwhelmingly tied to His coming down from Heaven. The testimonies in verses like John 3:13, John 3:17, John 6:38, and John 16:28 make it clear that Jesus’ being sent into the world refers to His descent from Heaven through the Incarnation. This distinction is significant in understanding His unique divine mission.


....
 

Pilgrimshope

Well-known member
Sep 2, 2020
14,139
5,720
113
The KJV enables the reader to obtain a higher spiritual understanding of scripture.
Not really a lot of people don’t have a high grasp of the old English language . The only reason it has those words is because they was the English language everyone spoke in the 1600s

i personally love the kjv and believe it’s translation to be the most accurate but it’s because I’m old and understand the words . The original new international version before the digital versions that constantly change is just as accurate as the kjv it’s just modern English rether than the antiquated English of the kjv

theres no difference in the two I looked at them both for thirty years still today carry the exact same message as the other it’s only that one , is more modern words so it’s easier to understand.

pretty much any version of the Bible has the same message . It didn’t matter if people heard John preaching the gospel in his words or Matthew in his , James or Peter in thier words or Paul in his . Didn’t matter if they wrote in Hebrew in the ot and Greek in the new

The message in the Bible is what is important a Spanish man can read a Spanish translation and he’s going to understand Jesus like an English man wouod who has a kjv . Or someone who owns and thinks Hebrew bibles are the only real Bible ect

aid there was someone preaching the gospel somewhere like they did , one wouldn’t even need to be able to read any language or any translation of the Bible they should Just hewr the things jesus taught about salvation in the Bible in someone else’s words and that also would be sufficient

much of the world could hold a kjv and not even read or understand modern English at all and it wouldn’t help them a bit …..but if you gave them a Bible translated into thier own language …then they could hear the gospel and believe and be saved and also share it with others who speak only rhier own language ….

God is able to reach people who don’t understand antiquaited English , there are many very accurate versions of the Bible they are just presented in different words and languages
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Not really a lot of people don’t have a high grasp of the old English language . The only reason it has those words is because they was the English language everyone spoke in the 1600s

i personally love the kjv and believe it’s translation to be the most accurate but it’s because I’m old and understand the words . The original new international version before the digital versions that constantly change is just as accurate as the kjv it’s just modern English rether than the antiquated English of the kjv

theres no difference in the two I looked at them both for thirty years still today carry the exact same message as the other it’s only that one , is more modern words so it’s easier to understand.

pretty much any version of the Bible has the same message . It didn’t matter if people heard John preaching the gospel in his words or Matthew in his , James or Peter in thier words or Paul in his . Didn’t matter if they wrote in Hebrew in the ot and Greek in the new

The message in the Bible is what is important a Spanish man can read a Spanish translation and he’s going to understand Jesus like an English man wouod who has a kjv . Or someone who owns and thinks Hebrew bibles are the only real Bible ect

aid there was someone preaching the gospel somewhere like they did , one wouldn’t even need to be able to read any language or any translation of the Bible they should Just hewr the things jesus taught about salvation in the Bible in someone else’s words and that also would be sufficient

much of the world could hold a kjv and not even read or understand modern English at all and it wouldn’t help them a bit …..but if you gave them a Bible translated into thier own language …then they could hear the gospel and believe and be saved and also share it with others who speak only rhier own language ….

God is able to reach people who don’t understand antiquaited English , there are many very accurate versions of the Bible they are just presented in different words and languages
This is not true. There are changed doctrines in Modern Bibles.

To give you a flavor of the changed doctrines, see: A List of False Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Which is from another thread).

Also, check out Catholic Ideas in the NIV. (Which also appear in other Modern Bibles).

There are Verses that Water-Down the Blood Atonement, and the Substitutionary Atonement.

There are also Verses in Modern Bibles that Align with New Age Practices, too.


And much, much more.

I have come up with 50 serious changed doctrines in my PDF write-up that is a part of a larger defense of the King James Bible. Some of these changes are not listed from what I have shown and they are absolutely bone chilling and evil.

Side Note:

Please understand that I do not have a problem in using Modern English Translations or dictionaries. However, these tools are only supplemental, and not a replacement for the KJV. Meaning, I believe a Christian can only use such tools only under the condition they believe that the King James Bible is the perfect words of God for us today, whereby we are not seeking to change what it says in English. The reasons for this is multi-faced which fall under various categories. In fact, I have come up with 150 Reasons for the KJV being the Pure Word of God for today. 50 of them are doctrinal, and 100 of them are non-doctrinal for the most part. I have prayed and worked hard to only give the best reasons. There were some points or reasons I even removed. But why make this list? Why did I spend 2 years of my life in this study? Well, the alternative is not pretty because it leads a believer to become their own authority or trust different scholars (with their being no real settled standard). But of course, there are more reasons than that.


....
....
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Not really a lot of people don’t have a high grasp of the old English language . The only reason it has those words is because they was the English language everyone spoke in the 1600s

i personally love the kjv and believe it’s translation to be the most accurate but it’s because I’m old and understand the words . The original new international version before the digital versions that constantly change is just as accurate as the kjv it’s just modern English rether than the antiquated English of the kjv

theres no difference in the two I looked at them both for thirty years still today carry the exact same message as the other it’s only that one , is more modern words so it’s easier to understand.

pretty much any version of the Bible has the same message . It didn’t matter if people heard John preaching the gospel in his words or Matthew in his , James or Peter in thier words or Paul in his . Didn’t matter if they wrote in Hebrew in the ot and Greek in the new

The message in the Bible is what is important a Spanish man can read a Spanish translation and he’s going to understand Jesus like an English man wouod who has a kjv . Or someone who owns and thinks Hebrew bibles are the only real Bible ect

aid there was someone preaching the gospel somewhere like they did , one wouldn’t even need to be able to read any language or any translation of the Bible they should Just hewr the things jesus taught about salvation in the Bible in someone else’s words and that also would be sufficient

much of the world could hold a kjv and not even read or understand modern English at all and it wouldn’t help them a bit …..but if you gave them a Bible translated into thier own language …then they could hear the gospel and believe and be saved and also share it with others who speak only rhier own language ….

God is able to reach people who don’t understand antiquaited English , there are many very accurate versions of the Bible they are just presented in different words and languages
As for the readability issue involving the King James Bible:

I don't believe this is a good argument against the KJV being the pure Word of God for today.
Scripture says God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.
Also, Jesus spoke in parables, and many times was not understood.
Even Peter said Paul's writings were hard to understand.
So God is not obligated to have His words read like a children's book or an article that hits a person over the head involving the clarity of its own words. Besides, we are told to study to shew ourselves approved unto God, as well.

It's like working out. No pain, and no gain.
We appreciate the truth more for working hard at studying His Word.
If everything was just handed to us on a silver platter, we really would not appreciate such things as deeply.


...
 

Genez

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2017
2,931
419
83
For those who are against abortion, for any reason...

The KJV is not your friend.

Job 3:11
Authorized (King James) Version

Why died I not from the womb?
Why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

The KJV did not say....

Why died I not in the womb?
Why did I not give up the ghost before I came out of the belly?


That is just one example of many how the KJV accurately translated the meaning of the Hebrew 'min betin.'
Meaning, from (outside) the womb.

God's Word says that Job could not die inside the womb.
Because God imputes the human soul at birth, not before.
The parents create the human body.
But, only God creates human soul life at birth, not before.

Look through the KJV and you will never find when it says, inside the womb to pertain to human soul life.

But, you will find 'inside the womb' in modern translations.
 

ForestGreenCook

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2018
8,441
1,213
113
True. But only "some things", and very few things. But the words of Christ are easy to be understood. He always spoke plainly, directly, and without wasting words. He knew He was addressing simple folks.

As to parables, they were given to hide spiritual truths from His enemies. But we have been shown what they mean. And parables are just that. Earthly stories with heavenly meanings. Doctrine cannot be based exclusively on parables.

According to 1 Cor 2:14, The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God hid the mystery of Christ's doctrine from spiritual Israel, which are not his enemy, but are his disobedient children (Rom 11:7-8)