Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
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.
Personally, I have never been confused as to both terms being a reference to God's Spirit. However, I do appreciate your sharing the history.
Not sure what you mean. If we look at the Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew, we find abstract words - love, grace, glory, faith, and many more abstract words are found in the OT.
Similarly, concrete words including rock, king, water (not cow), and many others are in the New Testament.
"Hebrew is primarily considered a concrete, sensory-based language, particularly in its ancient and biblical forms, rather than an abstract one. It describes the world through actions and physical functions that can be seen, touched, or heard, as opposed to abstract, philosophical, or passive descriptions often found in Western languages"
the above is the point I was attempting to make.
personally I find it difficult to understand when abstract word are used.
My mind need a clear mental picture.
The abstract words used in the New Testament are the cause of much of the division among Christians.
I do not think this is a mistake, nothing Done, is done against the will of God.
If God had wanted the Word to be easy to understand -- it would have been so.
my sister has a huge problem with the Old T God, she says God is love and what God did in those times was not love.
But, she can not define the word "love"????
@John146 @GaryA @fredoheaven @GRACE_ambassador @HealthAndHappiness @LeeLoving
I know some people do not like watching video debates. So I decided to convert my slide into a FREE PDF book format.
Why is this important?
Well, for one, I am looking to defend the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus to the glory of Jesus Christ.
Second, many Christians today have access to study tools that believers in past centuries could only dream of using. Through Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek study resources, along with pre-1700 lexicons and historical materials, it is now easier than ever to explore the deeper background behind many words preserved in the King James Bible.
This does not mean the KJV is insufficient by any means. No way. The KJV is without error. Rather, the original languages often enrich our understanding of what is already being communicated in English. Certain words, names, idioms, and transliterations can carry historical or linguistic details that are not always immediately visible on the surface.
For example:
• Why does the KJV sometimes use LORD where the Hebrew contains the divine name YHWH?
• Why does Acts 14 use Jupiter when the Greek points to Zeus through Roman expression?
• Why are some biblical words transliterated instead of translated?
This free PDF explores these subjects and much more using original language study, historical sources, pre-1700 lexicons, and modern research tools.
If you are interested, download the FREE PDF here:
www.affectionsabove.com
May the Lord Jesus bless you all richly.
....
@Dino246
I am glad to make you laugh.
The spy movie parallel is something that made me smile a bit, as well.
Some may wonder about the tagline in my spy movie poster.
‘Some truths were never meant to stay on the surface.’
Well, the idea behind this tagline is that the surface-level meaning of the KJV in English is not meant to remain isolated on the surface alone. Rather, the reader is invited to swim downward with those English truths into the deeper linguistic currents of the Hebrew and Greek beneath them, where additional layers of meaning can sometimes complement, expand, and enrich the English wording itself. In some cases, the original language may carry an added shade of meaning that works alongside the English rather than merely repeating it. For example, in Job 40:23, the KJV’s wording ‘hasteth not’ concerning Behemoth conveys the idea of not fleeing, while the underlying Hebrew can also carry the added sense of not being disturbed, alarmed, or fearful. Thus, the original languages do not replace the truth expressed in the KJV English, but can sometimes partner with it by contributing complementary layers of meaning that deepen the richness and texture of the passage.
Check out my Free PDF at:
www.affectionsabove.com
Side Note:
I have talked with some KJV English-only proponents on another platform, and they did give some pushback. They claim that one does not need the original languages, which I strongly disagree with.
In any event, may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you this fine day (even if we are not in perfect agreement on this topic).
….
I am glad to make you laugh.
The spy movie parallel is something that made me smile a bit, as well.
Some may wonder about the tagline in my spy movie poster.
‘Some truths were never meant to stay on the surface.’
Well, the idea behind this tagline is that the surface-level meaning of the KJV in English is not meant to remain isolated on the surface alone. Rather, the reader is invited to swim downward with those English truths into the deeper linguistic currents of the Hebrew and Greek beneath them, where additional layers of meaning can sometimes complement, expand, and enrich the English wording itself. In some cases, the original language may carry an added shade of meaning that works alongside the English rather than merely repeating it. For example, in Job 40:23, the KJV’s wording ‘hasteth not’ concerning Behemoth conveys the idea of not fleeing, while the underlying Hebrew can also carry the added sense of not being disturbed, alarmed, or fearful. Thus, the original languages do not replace the truth expressed in the KJV English, but can sometimes partner with it by contributing complementary layers of meaning that deepen the richness and texture of the passage.
Check out my Free PDF at:
www.affectionsabove.com
Side Note:
I have talked with some KJV English-only proponents on another platform, and they did give some pushback. They claim that one does not need the original languages, which I strongly disagree with.
In any event, may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you this fine day (even if we are not in perfect agreement on this topic).
….
What made me laugh is your claim, “The KJV is without error.”
You are free to believe that as you wish. I believe otherwise, and I am totally confident in that.
I have heard the so-called errors in the KJB since 1992, and none of them are true.
….
Its good to look to learn deeper truer meanings to your language Hebrew Aramaic Greek Then to English etc.
like the word Ruach an old word extra meaning in English .
like the word Ruach an old word extra meaning in English .
Italicized Bible was before kjv and they used themin kjv. now the italicized words are in kjv in normal print ,as if that is original jn12:32 now what truely was being to to the reader and it Not italicized word MEN
Learning some of the original words and phrases does enhance your understanding of scripture.
Depending on your desire of understanding as the spirit leads I also recommend a reliable history source and a source that teaches about culture and traditions.
These sometimes help to understand what and why some things are siad and done.
We are never to add or take away from the word of God but Learning a little background paints a bigger picture in conversation.
Depending on your desire of understanding as the spirit leads I also recommend a reliable history source and a source that teaches about culture and traditions.
These sometimes help to understand what and why some things are siad and done.
We are never to add or take away from the word of God but Learning a little background paints a bigger picture in conversation.
Yes, and that is true regarding all other reputable translations.
However, all translators are fallible and so no translation is inerrant.
Here is a true error in the KJV:
2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
I have seen stupid "explanations" of this that are completely unsatisfying. I have yet to see ANY KJV-only proponent acknowledge this as an error.
I won't hold my breath.
I can say the same for you.
One either believes all of what the Bible says or they don't believe it.
Most take the "Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible Approach" today.
So the Bible that exists in your mind with your preferred readings is going to disagree with the Bible that exists in the mind of another who thinks the same way. It's madness. But thats where we are at in these last days.
There is no real final word of authority. Everyone has become their own authority on all of what God said.
James White does not agree with Dan Wallace on all readings on what should be in the Bible.
There is no unity or true memorization of God's word in a movement like this.
Why do folks in the Modern Bible Movement ignore the influence of unitarians, Catholics, and liberals on it's text?
....
There are many things in the Bible that cannot be perfectly explained.
One can do their best but it ultimately takes faith to believe in all of what the Bible says.
All I can do is encourage you to believe the promises of God and that will help put you on a better path to understanding and trust in ALL of what God says. I say this because there are Christians in the Modern Bible Movement who have simply abandoned the faith because they don't have a settled word of God. This is simply the fact or fruit of the movement itself. However, if you were to contrast this with those who trust the TR/KJV, the number of those who abandon the faith is nowhere close to the numbers in Modern Bible world. You can research it for yourself. Facts do not lie.
....
Your condescension is despicable. There is no need to insult me just because I disagree with your view.
The infographic you provided does not demonstrate that there were two Ahaziahs. Rather, it focuses on non-critical differences while glossing over the incontrovertible similarities. There was certainly only one youngest son of Joram. There was certainly only one person who became king immediately after Joram. There was only one person who was the father of Joash.
You are welcome to continue your self-delusion, despite it being pointless. I will stick with the obvious truth: that there is an error in the KJV.