Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Bible_Highlighter]

I would say,when Jesus is the final authority and tells us our Salvation is irrevocable,and no one will take us from his hand,those like yourself who insist he misspoke are the ones who need to reconsider.

It really is a simple bit of logic. If we who did nothing to save ourselves are able to do something to lose our Salvation,then Jesus lied and it never really was Salvation by definition.

You are insecure in Christ when you insist upon something Jesus never taught. That you can lose Salvation.

Far be it from me to try to show you are wrong. When Jesus can't teach you that,mortals don't stand a chance.

Here we go again. You are not even bothering to look at the verses I posted in the links.
You just keep repeating what you believe is true and you are not being a good Berean to see whether those things be so or not.
Anyway, I am not the one you will have to convince come the day we all meet Jesus Christ.
I am trying to help you to see what the Bible says, but you are like, "Nope, OSAS!" while you have your fingers in your ears.
This is the same problem I have when running into folks who are radical Leftists or those who think Modern Bibles are great.
They have decided a long time ago not to listen. Only a few who real truth seekers will eventually find out the truth.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

wasn't in this topic i don't focus on sin sabbath Ot commands, saved by this that or the other .i know jesus as rhe Lord God Who has The Anointing and Anoints.. Then i know His judgement . He Alone Son of man & Glorified.
But if you want Sin just deny The Holy Spirit or keep lieing to Him and self

While moral laws (like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, etc.) still apply under the New Covenant, we are not under the Old Testament commands as a whole. Meaning, we do not have to keep any of the ceremonial laws like the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, holy days, etcetera. We do not have to keep the civic laws given to Israel. Those things were a part of the Old Covenant. We follow the commands given to us by Jesus Christ and His followers. We are under the New Covenant. God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world. Will we be perfect always? I cannot answer that question for everyone. I think that may be different for every believer, but God's word tells us that without holiness, no man shall see the Lord. So if we do not live holy on some level in this life that God deems acceptable as a part of His saving grace, then we are not going to make into the Kingdom. That applies to me, you, and everyone else. I wish things were different. I truly do. But I have to face the reality of what the Scripture says in numerous places.

Anyway it just seems like you are not dealing with any of the points I am making with the Bible.


....

 

[Kroogz]

A poster named, "FreeGrace2" clearly believes he can sin and still be saved. Check out his post here:

And he clearly, completely and succinctly refuted the "perfect" human being he was debating.

FreeGrace was an absolute stud with Bible doctrine. And we need more like him around here.

 

[Bible_Locket]

Here we go again. You are not even bothering to look at the verses I posted in the links.
You just keep repeating what you believe is true and you are not being a good Berean to see whether those things be so or not.
Anyway, I am not the one you will have to convince come the day we all meet Jesus Christ.
I am trying to help you to see what the Bible says, but you are like, "Nope, OSAS!" while you have your fingers in your ears.
This is the same problem I have when running into folks who are radical Leftists or those who think Modern Bibles are great.
They have decided a long time ago not to listen. Only a few who real truth seekers will eventually find out the truth.



....

The Bereans also knew Salvation was irrevocable.

I hold to my position after reading yours because your position is wrong. And,being Jesus said in different pasages that we will never loose his Salvific gift, your pov is Biblically me ndefensible. In other words, unbiblical.

Again,why would any born again Christian who has read and understood the Salvific irrevocable guarantee of Salvation Jesus taught and died to make manifest, ever repeatedly insist Salvation IS NOT what Jesus said it is?

 

[frederickdoc]

Correct No ,not at All

 

[PaulThomson]

I think it is a translation that is accurate in its wording (even though it is written in 1600s English).

Do you think the KJV translates

I think it is a translation that is accurate in its wording (even though it is written in 1600s English).

1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2Th 3:12
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

Has the KJV been evenhanded in its translation of hEsuchia as it relates as a to men and women? Does hEsuchia mean silence, or ruliness/quietness?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Do you think the KJV translates

1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2Th 3:12
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

Has the KJV been evenhanded in its translation of hEsuchia as it relates as a to men and women? Does hEsuchia mean silence, or ruliness/quietness?

Stephanus and LSJ both recognize “silence” as an established meaning of ἡσυχία, although the word also has the broader sense of rest, quietness, and tranquility.

Stephanus’ Lexicon:

Under the headword ἡσυχία, Stephanus begins with the Latin definition:

Quies, Tranquillitas
Rest, quietness, tranquility

He later identifies a more specific sense:

Silentium
Silence

Stephanus supports this speech-related sense with examples from Greek literature, including:

• Lucian, The Sale of Lives 3, concerning the Pythagoreans:
  ἡσυχία μακρὴ καὶ ἄφωνος
  “a long and voiceless silence”
  The same context speaks of:
  πέντε ἐτῶν σιγὴν ἄγειν
  “observing silence for five years”
• Plutarch, Coriolanus:
  Καὶ παρέσχεν αὐτῷ σιωπὴν καὶ ἡσυχίαν ὁ δῆμος.
  “And the people afforded him silence and quiet attention.”
  Here σιωπή, “silence,” and ἡσυχία occur together and reinforce the speech-related meaning.
• Plutarch, Demetrius 8:
  αἰτεῖν ἡσυχίας καὶ σιωπῆς
  “to ask for quietness and silence”
• Euripides, Alcestis 77:
  Τί ποθ’ ἡσυχία πρόσθεν μελάθρων;
  “Why is there silence before the palace?”

Source: https://archive.org/details/tgl-prospectus-13/TGL_vol_4a/page/n105/mode/2up

Thus, Stephanus gives Quies, Tranquillitas as the principal definition but expressly lists Silentium as an established contextual meaning supported by Greek usage.

LSJ Lexicon:

LSJ gives the principal definition:

rest, quiet

It then presents a separate numbered sense:

2. silence, stillness

For this meaning LSJ cites:

• Euripides, Alcestis 77:
  Τί ποθ’ ἡσυχία πρόσθεν μελάθρων;
  “Why is there silence before the palace?”
• Lucian, The Sale of Lives 3, particularly the silence practiced by the Pythagoreans.

LSJ also provides additional constructions that demonstrate a speech-related meaning:

ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ ἔχειν τι
“to keep something quiet; not to speak of it”
Herodotus 5.92γ

And under ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν, LSJ gives:

keep silent
Herodotus 5.92; Euripides, Andromache 143; Aristophanes, Frogs 321

Therefore, LSJ does not treat “silence” as an unsupported interpretive gloss. It gives “silence, stillness” as a distinct lexical sense and documents it with classical Greek usage.

LSJ entry for ἡσυχία⁠

In summary:

Stephanus: Quies, Tranquillitas; specifically also Silentium
LSJ: “rest, quiet”; specifically also “silence, stillness”

Both lexicons therefore confirm that the KJV’s translation “silence” in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 falls within the historically documented meaning of ἡσυχία.



…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Bereans also knew Salvation was irrevocable.

I hold to my position after reading yours because your position is wrong. And,being Jesus said in different pasages that we will never loose his Salvific gift, your pov is Biblically me ndefensible. In other words, unbiblical.

Again,why would any born again Christian who has read and understood the Salvific irrevocable guarantee of Salvation Jesus taught and died to make manifest, ever repeatedly insist Salvation IS NOT what Jesus said it is?

It’s like I am speaking a foreign language and you missed entirely my point. Either that are you simply have suppressed the truth to a point where you are in denial about looking at anything in the Bible that might challenge your position.

Time for me to move on when you are unwilling to look at the Bible and challenge your own belief system.



….

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

And he clearly, completely and succinctly refuted the "perfect" human being he was debating.

FreeGrace was an absolute stud with Bible doctrine. And we need more like him around here.

Obviously you never understood Matthew 13:41-42, John 15:2, John 15:6, Galatians 6:8-9, 1 Timothy 5:8.

I am afraid for you both.
But I am expecting the immature response here.
You are going to probably say something dumb and fleshy again and not even look at the context of these passages (seeking truth) or meditate on them in prayer or ask God what they could even mean. Why? Well, if one believes they can do extreme sins like that and be saved then obviously one’s motivation is not the righteousness of God but unrighteousness. One’s real master would then be sin and evil and not the Lord our God who is holy.

Romans 6:16 (KJV)
“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?”



…..



….

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Correct No ,not at All

Who are you replying to, and what are these words supposed to even mean?




…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

And he clearly, completely and succinctly refuted the "perfect" human being he was debating.

FreeGrace was an absolute stud with Bible doctrine. And we need more like him around here.

Right, because we all want to live in an immoral society where people are out to kill you, harm you, and do all manner of evil against you. In other words, if everyone took this sociopathic attitude toward Christianity, we would be living in a world that is an immoral nightmare. Ever heard of Jesus talking about the golden rule before? Your belief is not duplicatable. Your belief is highly logical. Society is held together by keeping laws. A belief system based on anarchy and evil never works.


....

 

[frederickdoc]

Who are you replying to, and what are these words supposed to even mean?




…..

That is what id like to Know!
I would only like The Holy man Inside to hear not Flesh of this world
what does that mean ?
im taking to the inner man .

 

[Bible_Locket]

It’s like I am speaking a foreign language and you missed entirely my point.

I am speaking a different language than you.

I speak Jesus.
Unlike yourself , I don't call him a false teacher .

Either that are you simply have suppressed the truth to a point where you are in denial about looking at anything in the Bible that might challenge your position.

You're upset your insistence Salvation is eternal and irrevocable isn't true isn't being conceded to.
You worship the flesh. Thinking an can overturn Gods irrevocable gift.

To be blunt,that's a lie.

Time for me to move on when you are unwilling to look at the Bible and challenge your own belief system.

That's you,buddy.
I don't have anything to worry about when eternally irrevocably Saved and Sealed by Christ.

I'll leave you to live insecure in yourerrsnt false doctrine.

The Gospel isn't a . But darned if there aren't those like yourself who try to make it one.

 

[PaulThomson]

Stephanus and LSJ both recognize “silence” as an established meaning of ἡσυχία, although the word also has the broader sense of rest, quietness, and tranquility.

2Th 3:12
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly (meta hEsuchiaS) and to earn their own living.

Can the persons addressed by Paul in 2 Thess. 3:10-12 obey his injuction while making noise and speaking? Are they being told to work resting, to work silently, to work without anxiety, (in tranquility) or to work in a ruly uncontentious manner?

Could women participate in an assembly and speak, testify, and prophesy, while still obeying Paul’s injunction?

Could a woman speak in bible class and yet still be obeying the greek text of Paul’s injunction of 1 Tim 2: 11-12?
1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence (en hEsuchiai) with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (en hEsuchiai).

Were the KJV translators being even-handed toward both men and women in the way they chose to translate hEsuchia in scripture? Or were they perhaps imposing their culture’s male chauvanism onto scripture?

 

[cv5]

Yes, the KJV puts the word "men" in John 12:32 in italics, because the original Greek does not have a word for "men":

KJV with Strong's Numbers Jhn 12:32 And I, G2504 if G1437 I be lifted up G5312 from G1537 the G3588 earth, G1093 will draw G1670 all G3956 men unto G4314 me. G1683

You will see that men is in italics, and there is no Strong's reference number after it, because there just is no word for "men" in the Greek. Several English translations use the word "people". One, the MKJV, just translates the Greek words which are there, and has "will draw all to Myself."

Why did they add "men"?
Look at the crucial Greek word in that clause: πάντας (pantas).
Strong's #3956 (pas) means "all," "every," or "the whole".

However, in this specific instance, it is in the accusative masculine plural form.
In Greek, an adjective can easily drop the noun and stand entirely on its own (this is called using an adjective substantivally). Because pantas is masculine plural ("all [masculine]"), it inherently means "all men" or "all people."

If the translators had rendered it literally into English as just "I will draw all unto me," it would leave English readers hanging: All what? All things? All dogs? All stars?

To make the grammatical gender and the clear intent of the Greek text understandable in English, the KJV added the noun men.

 

[Kroogz]

Why did they add "men"?
Look at the crucial Greek word in that clause: πάντας (pantas).
Strong's #3956 (pas) means "all," "every," or "the whole".

However, in this specific instance, it is in the accusative masculine plural form.
In Greek, an adjective can easily drop the noun and stand entirely on its own (this is called using an adjective substantivally). Because pantas is masculine plural ("all [masculine]"), it inherently means "all men" or "all people."

If the translators had rendered it literally into English as just "I will draw all unto me," it would leave English readers hanging: All what? All things? All dogs? All stars?

To make the grammatical gender and the clear intent of the Greek text understandable in English, the KJV added the noun men.

Great insight and teaching.

Hard for the calvies to render it to "elect", "some" or a "few."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I am speaking a different language than you.

I speak Jesus.
Unlike yourself , I don't call him a false teacher .

That's a false accusation because nowhere did I ever say Jesus is a false teacher.
Jesus is God.
Jesus is Lord.
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.
But people do not like all of what Jesus said, even if they don't exactly say that or think that way on a conscious level.

You're upset your insistence Salvation is eternal and irrevocable isn't true isn't being conceded to.

Trust me, I wish it wasn't.
Who doesn't want the easy way out?
If Scripture clearly taught it, then I would believe it.
But its just not there.

You worship the flesh.

That's actually what OSAS promotes because if you cannot out sin the grace of God with no repentance or remorse, or turning from sin, then obviously worshiping sin and the flesh is what will naturally follow. Satan knows this. It's why its such a deceptive false teaching.

Thinking an can overturn Gods irrevocable gift.

Yes. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance” in Romans 11:29 does not, by itself, prove that an individual believer is incapable of falling away from salvation.

The first thing to notice is the context. Romans 11 is primarily discussing Israel, God’s covenant purposes, and the fact that God has not permanently cast away His people. Paul has just said:

“As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Romans 11:28–29)​

So “the gifts and calling of God” refers especially to God’s gracious promises and calling connected with Israel. Paul’s point is that God does not change His mind and revoke His covenant purposes merely because Israel is presently in unbelief.

The Greek word translated “without repentance” is ἀμεταμέλητα, meaning essentially “not regretted,” “not repented of,” or “irrevocable.” The emphasis is on God’s faithfulness to Israel, not on the impossibility of human apostasy.

God can give something genuinely and remain faithful in giving it, while the recipient can still reject, abandon, or fail to continue in what was given.

For example, Romans 11 itself uses the olive-tree illustration:

“Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.”​

(Romans 11:20)​

Then Paul warns believing Gentiles:

“For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.”​

(Romans 11:21)​

And:

“Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God ... toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” (Romans 11:22).

Either that are you simply have suppressed the truth to a point where you are in denial about looking at anything in the Bible that might challenge your position.

To be blunt,that's a lie.

Then why have you not looked at the verses that I gave you and bring some of them here to discuss them?

That's you,buddy.
I don't have anything to worry about when eternally irrevocably Saved and Sealed by Christ.

So what do you make of Matthew 13:41-42? Do you not understand that Jesus will send forth His angels and gather out of HIS KINGDOM all who offend and do iniquity and cast them into the furnace of fire? Hint: The furnace of fire is the Lake of Fire.

Read it very slowly. It actually says that Christ's angels will gather those who do iniquity out of HIS KINGDOM!!!

HIS KINGDOM!!!! They will be gathered out of HIS KINGDOM who do iniquity and they will be cast into the furnace of fire.

Do you not know that John 15:2 says, "Every branch IN ME that beareth not fruit he taketh away:"? Then in verse 6, it says,

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6). So Jesus is saying that any branch IN ME that does not bear fruit is taken away. Taken away for what? See verse 6. The idea of fire is destruction or punishment in the Lake of Fire.

I'll leave you to live insecure in yourerrsnt false doctrine.

I am still here to discuss the Scriptures with you if you are willing to engage with what they actually say.

The Gospel isn't a . But darned if there aren't those like yourself who try to make it one.

You obviously do not realize that the gospel calls us. Most OSAS Christians don't.

"...God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel,..." (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

So the gospel calls in the fact that God has chosen us to salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth.

God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (See: Titus 2:11-12 KJV).

Jude 1:4 warns us that there are those who turn God's grace into lasciviousness. Meaning, they think God's grace is a license to sin.

That is what WILL HAPPEN if they think nothing can separate them from God. They will sin and think they are saved while they are sinning instead of them employing Proverbs 28:13. Proverbs 28 basically says that he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy. 1 John 1:9 says if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:7 says if we walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. Walking in the light is defined for us in 1 John 2:9-10. Its indirectly saying that if you love your brother, you are walking in the light. So if you meet that condition of loving your brother, you are walking in the light and the blood of Jesus Christ will continue to cleanse you from all sin. To make it unmistakable, 1 John 3:15 says that to hate your brother means you are a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.


....


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

2Th 3:12
Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly (meta hEsuchiaS) and to earn their own living.

Can the persons addressed by Paul in 2 Thess. 3:10-12 obey his injuction while making noise and speaking? Are they being told to work resting, to work silently, to work without anxiety, (in tranquility) or to work in a ruly uncontentious manner?

Could women participate in an assembly and speak, testify, and prophesy, while still obeying Paul’s injunction?

Could a woman speak in bible class and yet still be obeying the greek text of Paul’s injunction of 1 Tim 2: 11-12?
1Ti 2:11
Let the woman learn in silence (en hEsuchiai) with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (en hEsuchiai).

Were the KJV translators being even-handed toward both men and women in the way they chose to translate hEsuchia in scripture? Or were they perhaps imposing their culture’s male chauvanism onto scripture?

Obviously you missed the part of my posts that give quotes to Ancient Greek authors.
You also appeared to miss or not understand that Stephanus' Lexicon predates the KJV by about 39 years.
You also do not appear to understand that LSJ"s lexicon covers not only biblical Greek but Ancient Greek.

Anyway, it sound like you have a barrow to push against the KJV.
Even despite facts I shown that should eliminate the KJV from the equation, you still have your targets set upon it.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Great insight and teaching.

Hard for the calvies to render it to "elect", "some" or a "few."

The reason why I don't like Calvinism is because not only is it unbiblical, but it is immoral.
Yet, people still follow it even if it paints God in a bad light.
I have similar feelings of the sin and still be saved belief you hold to.
I see it as religion for sociopaths or those who are out to justify sin and evil in some way (Which doesn't make any sense if you are supposed to be for God who is for holiness and righteousness).

What do you do with Matthew 13:41-42?
What about Galatians 6:8-9?
What about 1 Timothy 5:8?
What about Jude 1:4?

Do you just ignore these verses?
Or do you search endlessly for a website to explain them away?
How do you explain them with being honest with yourself and sleep at night?


....

 

[PaulThomson]

Obviously you missed the part of my posts that give quotes to Ancient Greek authors.
You also appeared to miss or not understand that Stephanus' Lexicon predates the KJV by about 39 years.
You also do not appear to understand that LSJ"s lexicon covers not only biblical Greek but Ancient Greek.

Anyway, it sound like you have a barrow to push against the KJV.
Even despite facts I shown that should eliminate the KJV from the equation, you still have your targets set upon it.



....

I did not dispute that Stephanus and the LSI grant a semantic range for hEsuchia. I asked whether, given the semantic range of hEsuchia, would men and women be breaking Paul’s injunctions to work and learn “en hEsuchiai” and “meta hEsuchias”, if they spoke or made noise while learning and working. You did not answer my questions. Why not first answer them, and then you can attempt to justify why the KJV translators were right to give men the more lenient end of the semantic range (i.e. work with quietness/ruliness/peaceableness, and women the less lenient end of the semantic range i.e. (learn in silence, rather than in quietness/ruliness/peaceableness)?