Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Qt]

that standard should apply to those who sowed it first shouldn't it ?

my first question was to this person : "can I ask you what is a definition of " without Error" ? Ans what is an error? Thank you."
His response was:
"This sounds like a trap of getting me to define something that I may need to later qualify.
Everyone knows what an error is.

You might be the only one who sees a comparison between what you said what they said.

You been told, I did my part.
Take care

 

[CS1]

You might be the only one who sees a comparison between what you said what they said.

You been told, I did my part.
Take care

yea you been told to and it matter about as much as to me as what you have said You are no authority here

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Mat 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20
“For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

1Co 5:1
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
1Co 5:2
And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
1Co 5:3
For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

If Jesus must be omnipresent when saying Matt. 18:20, then Paul must be omnipresent when writing 1 Cor. 5:1-5. But perhaps there is a more subtle nuance to the language of both.
Maybe Jesus is saying that when two or three pray in agreement to the Father in His name, it is to the Father as though He were also among their number asking the Father with them.
And likewise paul may be saying, when you agree together and hand the reprobate over to satan, it is as though I am also in your midst adding my voice to yours.

Making Matt 18:20 proof positive of Jesus' omnipresence, would have to make 1 Cor. 5 proof positive of Paul's omnipresence.

Your comparison overlooks a qualification in Paul’s statement that does not appear in Jesus’ statement.

(1) Paul’s statement (1 Corinthians 5:3, KJV):

“For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,”

The relevant Greek in Beza 1598 is:

παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν

“but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present.”

The words ὡς παρών (hōs parōn) mean “as if present.” Paul’s “present in spirit” and his judging “as though I were present” occur in the same sentence and concern the same act of judgment. They should be interpreted together. Paul is bodily absent but participates through his apostolic judgment as though personally there.

https://biblehub.com/beza/1_corinthians/5.htm

(2) LSJ’s entry for ὡς, under C.I, gives this grammatical category:

“with Participles in the case of the Subject, to mark the reason or motive of the action, as if, as”

This is the closest grammatical category because παρών is a participle in the nominative case referring to Paul, the subject. In this passage, the phrase expresses the assumed circumstance of his judging: “as if present.” LSJ supplies the relevant sense, although it does not specifically discuss this verse.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/ὡς

Cambridge Dictionary likewise defines the English expression “as though” as “as if.” Thus, the KJV’s “as though I were present” aligns with this meaning of the Greek.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/as-though

(3) Consider these examples:

“Although I was absent from the meeting, I sent my decision in writing, as though I were present.”

“Although I was absent from the meeting, I sent my decision in writing, as if I were present.”

Both mean that my decision participates in the meeting despite my personal absence. Neither means I am literally in the room.

“I supported them from another city, as though I were standing beside them.”

“I supported them from another city, as if I were standing beside them.”

Again, both describe support despite physical absence.

Now compare those statements with: “Wherever you gather, I am there in your midst.”

That directly asserts presence. It does not say, “It is as though I were there.” You would need to establish a figurative meaning from the context, rather than supply an “as though” qualification that the statement itself does not contain.

(4) Jesus’ statement (Matthew 18:20, KJV):

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Beza 1598 has:

Οὗ γάρ εἰσι δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.

The concluding words, ἐκεῖ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, mean “there am I in their midst.” There is no ὡς qualifying His presence as “as if” or “as though.”

https://biblehub.com/beza/matthew/18.htm

You suggest that the Father treats their prayer as though Jesus were among them asking alongside them. But that is something you are imagining and supplying to the passage. It is not stated in the actual text. Jesus says He is in their midst.

Furthermore, Paul describes his participation in one particular congregation’s judgment. Jesus gives a general promise concerning gatherings in His name. Therefore, taking Jesus’ promise as actual presence does not require making Paul omnipresent. Your comparison does not establish that their statements mean the same thing.

(5) Let’s also not ignore John 3:13, which says in the KJV:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

While speaking to Nicodemus on earth, Jesus describes Himself as “the Son of man which is in heaven.” This supports Christ’s divine presence beyond His bodily location on earth. I understand this in connection with His being one with the Father in heaven (John 10:30).

The modern Critical Text omits “which is in heaven” from John 3:13, and translations following that reading omit it from their main text as well. This is a Greek textual difference, not merely an English translation choice. The omitted Greek is ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, meaning “who is in heaven.” Thus, this omission removes an explicit testimony to His heavenly presence while on earth.

https://biblehub.com/john/3-13.htm

https://biblehub.com/texts/john/3-13.htm



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Then you have not been communicating clearly. You should have said that no one except God can forgive sins against God. I would have agreed.

There is no dispute between us that Jesus of Nazareth was an incarnation of One of the Ever-existing Divine Persons Who had created the universe and Who had existed within the Godhead as omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent before His incarnation. So any sin against God was a sin against Jesus of Nazareth. And just as any human can forgive sins against them, so any member of the Godhead can forgive sins against the Godhead. But Jesus of Nazareth did not need to be omniscient, omnipresent or omnipotent while incarnate, to be One of the Ever-existing Divine Persons while incarnate. So, the fact that during His 33 years pre-death He could forgive sins against the Godhead does not logically prove He was also omnipotent, omniscient,. and omnipresent during His 33 pre-death years. Your scripture does not prove He kept omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience in His transition to humanity.

Communication is always going to be imperfect. I am sure there are many things you had to clarify to others before and I am sure it will not be your last, either. I am just saying that most people I have run into do not claim that a man cannot forgive another person and also most Christians understand that it God's forgiveness is different. So your disagreement here is not really a point that disproves the original point I made. The type of forgiveness Jesus offered was God's forgiveness that deals with their salvation. Man cannot offer another man forgiveness as a part of salvation without God involved. This was the original point I was making in that Jesus has power as God. So this point is still a winning score for my list.


....

 

[PaulThomson]

5. Jesus can make His home or abode inside of us if we keep His commandments
John 14:15). This is a part of His divine power and or abilities as God. Humans
born to two parents cannot make their homes inside other people. Jesus did not
say he would only do this after His resurrection, either. He said it to those around
Him and therefore Jesus would have exercised this power because some follower of
His would have strived to keep His commands.
....

Jhn 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Jhn 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Jhn 14:18
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

So, Jesus is talking about future conditions, not His present practice.

Jhn 14:19
Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also
Jhn 14:20
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

So, Jesus is still talking in the present about the future, not about the present. In the red, Jesus is talking about the future using the present tense.

Jhn 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

In the red, Jesus is using the present tense to talk about the future, as "shall be loved of my Father" indicates.
Jhn 14:22
¶
Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Judas understands Jesus is talking about the future.

Jhn 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Jhn 14:24
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Jhn 14:25
¶
These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

Jesus is speaking to them in the present about the future.

Jhn 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Your argument that Jesus is saying this to His disciples in the present, and therefore He is speaking about what is the case in the present, clearly wrests the one verse you cited out of its context. to misrepresent Jesus' meaning in order to support your presupposed Christology. And a text without context is a pretext.

 

[PaulThomson]

Your comparison overlooks a qualification in Paul’s statement that does not appear in Jesus’ statement.

(1) Paul’s statement (1 Corinthians 5:3, KJV):

“For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,”

The relevant Greek in Beza 1598 is:

παρὼν δὲ τῷ πνεύματι, ἤδη κέκρικα ὡς παρὼν

“but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present.”

The words ὡς παρών (hōs parōn) mean “as if present.” Paul’s “present in spirit” and his judging “as though I were present” occur in the same sentence and concern the same act of judgment. They should be interpreted together. Paul is bodily absent but participates through his apostolic judgment as though personally there.

https://biblehub.com/beza/1_corinthians/5.htm

(2) LSJ’s entry for ὡς, under C.I, gives this grammatical category:

“with Participles in the case of the Subject, to mark the reason or motive of the action, as if, as”

This is the closest grammatical category because παρών is a participle in the nominative case referring to Paul, the subject. In this passage, the phrase expresses the assumed circumstance of his judging: “as if present.” LSJ supplies the relevant sense, although it does not specifically discuss this verse.

https://lsj.gr/wiki/ὡς

Cambridge Dictionary likewise defines the English expression “as though” as “as if.” Thus, the KJV’s “as though I were present” aligns with this meaning of the Greek.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/as-though

(3) Consider these examples:

“Although I was absent from the meeting, I sent my decision in writing, as though I were present.”

“Although I was absent from the meeting, I sent my decision in writing, as if I were present.”

Both mean that my decision participates in the meeting despite my personal absence. Neither means I am literally in the room.

“I supported them from another city, as though I were standing beside them.”

“I supported them from another city, as if I were standing beside them.”

Again, both describe support despite physical absence.

Now compare those statements with: “Wherever you gather, I am there in your midst.”

That directly asserts presence. It does not say, “It is as though I were there.” You would need to establish a figurative meaning from the context, rather than supply an “as though” qualification that the statement itself does not contain.

(4) Jesus’ statement (Matthew 18:20, KJV):

“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

Beza 1598 has:

Οὗ γάρ εἰσι δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.

The concluding words, ἐκεῖ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν, mean “there am I in their midst.” There is no ὡς qualifying His presence as “as if” or “as though.”

https://biblehub.com/beza/matthew/18.htm

You suggest that the Father treats their prayer as though Jesus were among them asking alongside them. But that is something you are imagining and supplying to the passage. It is not stated in the actual text. Jesus says He is in their midst.

Furthermore, Paul describes his participation in one particular congregation’s judgment. Jesus gives a general promise concerning gatherings in His name. Therefore, taking Jesus’ promise as actual presence does not require making Paul omnipresent. Your comparison does not establish that their statements mean the same thing.

(5) Let’s also not ignore John 3:13, which says in the KJV:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

While speaking to Nicodemus on earth, Jesus describes Himself as “the Son of man which is in heaven.” This supports Christ’s divine presence beyond His bodily location on earth. I understand this in connection with His being one with the Father in heaven (John 10:30).

The modern Critical Text omits “which is in heaven” from John 3:13, and translations following that reading omit it from their main text as well. This is a Greek textual difference, not merely an English translation choice. The omitted Greek is ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, meaning “who is in heaven.” Thus, this omission removes an explicit testimony to His heavenly presence while on earth.

https://biblehub.com/john/3-13.htm

https://biblehub.com/texts/john/3-13.htm



....

You ignored the other verses.
1Co 5:3
For I verily, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of time = while) absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of time = while) present in spirit, concerning him that hath behaved like this (οὕτως ).
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

So Paul considers Himself present in spirit. Why? Because Paul's intentions for the Corinthians are united with Jesus' intentions for them, and their spiritual union via the Holy Spirit positions Paul in Christ in the midst of the two or more Corinthians agreeing bout this thing. In the same way, we are seated in Christ in heavenly places, while being physically here on earth.
Eph 2:6
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

You say -
"You suggest that the Father treats their prayer as though Jesus were among them asking alongside them. But that is something you are imagining and supplying to the passage. It is not stated in the actual text. Jesus says He is in their midst."

You ignore the context showing that Jesus is speaking about a future condition, not one that was presently the case while He was speaking. His words do not imply He had omnipresence of spirit at the time He was speaking, any more than Paul's words to the Corinthians implied that Paul had omnipresence at the time He was writing.

You say -
"(5) Let’s also not ignore John 3:13, which says in the KJV:

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” "

It is my assessment that the section of John 3 from verse 13 to 21 are John's comments on what has just been reported by Him. It is my assessment that these were not Jesus' own words to Nicodemus. I say this because if they are John's comments, they woukd be true at the time John wrote them, because Jesus had risen and had ascended back into heaven by that time.says. Howevet=r, if they were jesus words, they would be untrue at the time Jesus was allegedly speaking them, because Jesus told Mary Magdalene at the tomb, wellafter speaking to Nicodemus -

Jhn 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

 

[frederickdoc]

Y

Jhn 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

It is the exact moment in the New Testament where the spiritual rebirth Peter wrote about actually becomes legal and real.
When Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene outside the empty tomb, He reveals a radical shift in how human beings relate to the Almighty.

1. The Shift from "My" to "Our"
Notice the precise wording Jesus uses:

"...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

Before the resurrection, Jesus spoke of God as His Father. The disciples were His followers, servants, or friends. But the very moment Jesus rose from the dead, a Family Restructuring took place. Because Jesus paid the penalty for sin, those who follow Him are now legally "Begotten Again" into the exact same family. His Father is now literally our Father.

The First Time He Calls Them "Brethren"
Look at the command Jesus gives Mary:

"...go to my brethren, and say unto them..."

This is the very first time in the Gospel of John that Jesus refers to His disciples as His brethren (brothers).

• In the Upper Room, He called them "friends" (John 15:15).
• But post-resurrection, they are brothers. Why? Because to have the same Father, you must be part of the same lineage. They have been re-begotten of the incorruptible seed.

Connecting John 20:17 Directly to 1 Peter 1:3
Your two threads lock together perfectly right here.
Remember what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:3: God "hath begotten us again... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."
John 20:17 is the historical event that Peter is summarizing. Peter is saying: "The reason we can call God our Father now is because of what Jesus told Mary at the tomb the morning He rose." The resurrection is the official birth certificate of the believer.

This ties the entire concept of divine parentage together beautifully this is the short version much comes is the Holy Spirit

 

[PaulThomson]

You ignored the other verses.
1Co 5:3
For I verily, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of time = while) absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of time = while) present in spirit, concerning him that hath behaved like this (οὕτως ).
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Other options for the sense of hOs in this text -

1Co 5:3
For I verily, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of comparison = as though) absent in body but present in spirit, have judged already, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of comparison = as though) present in spirit, concerning him that hath behaved like this (οὕτως ).
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Co 5:3
For I verily, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of manner = by being) absent in body but present in spirit, have judged already, as (hOs, i.e. an adverb of comparison = by being) present in spirit, concerning him that hath behaved like this (οὕτως ).
1Co 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


My point is that you are choosing one possible sense of the Greek text and are insisting that it is the only sense possible, because you are imposing your theological preference onto the Greek text. But you proof texts don't prove what you insist that they prove.

 

[Qt]

yea you been told to and it matter about as much as to me as what you have said You are no authority here

Authority here? I am not telling you what to do. We are responsible for one another and how we act.

 

[John146]

You had to ignore that truth of all Scriptures in the bible that bring clarity to the text.

Ok, yet the verse is still not true and does not line up with the rest. All scripture should be true.

 

[Genez]

A lot of KJVO believe the KJV English is inspired and without error; thus, no knowledge of the original languages is necessary. KJVO is wacky enough already, but this kind of thinking propels it to a whole new level of crazy.

KJV Only is a stupid solution for making stupid people feel smarter than others.

.......

 

[CS1]

Ok, yet the verse is still not true and does not line up with the rest. All scripture should be true.

Here my point, there are bad modern translations that have not did diligence in translation or have hidden agenda. Yet, there are those who did what is known as "Copyist discrepancies."
AS you should know, no one in the bible wrote in chapter and verse. That was added to make reading of the text easier.
The most reliable manuscripts over what is some 56 thousand has provided enough for righteous living and appropriate worship. Scholars employ a range of criteria when evaluating the reliability of biblical manuscripts: Age, Geographical Distribution, Difficulty of Reading, and Agreement among Eye Witnesses.
The Manuscripts collectively bring understanding and a better translation of the Bible as a whole such as :

The Masoretic Text​

The Septuagint​

The Dead Sea Scrolls​

P52
P66 and P75
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Alexandrinus
No one is denying there are bad modern translations and those who are enemies of the faith, and writings like what is known as Pseudepigrapha:
Writings of the period 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 that were false.
I am not a KJV only guy however, I will not throw out the baby with the bath water either. Nor am I going to say "The bible has errors. there are 66 book and 40 different writers and many did not even meet each other. With Geographical locations, Archaeological findings and eye witnesses of other eyewitnesses we have over 99% of what is needed from God to trust. Many current versions and translations IF they did do just diligence. Are reliable. The supreme figure on which all Scripture is built on IS Christ, From Gen to REV.
Jesus is the red Thread that we see through the entire Books. Those like the JW's New World Translations and unknown publishers that changed the person of Christ to push a false witness of Christ is Anti-Christ. No argument there. The question asked in the thread is : Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

I think the better question is necessary KJV Reader. KJV Believer? is this a reference to those whom I think you call KJV only types?

I can tell you this that the KJV reader will see Jesus as the only way of salvation John 14:6 KJV, The concept of the Trinity is there in the KJV. IF one comes to the saving knowledge of Christ as many have who never knew about Greek or Hebrew when they were saved proves that those who God called and saved with a KJV Bible that was preached out of, the answer would be no to the question.
However, because "Christians are told to study I believe all should learn the Hebrew and Greek translations After coming to Christ. It don't mean a thing if you don't have the King.

 

[John146]

A lot of KJVO believe the KJV English is inspired and without error; thus, no knowledge of the original languages is necessary. KJVO is wacky enough already, but this kind of thinking propels it to a whole new level of crazy.

Do you have knowledge of ancient Egyptian speech? Joseph spoke in Egyptian. He used a translator for his brethren. Do we have what Joseph originally said in Egyptian? Or is the Hebrew translation suffecient?

 

[Qt]

KJV Only is a stupid solution for making stupid people feel smarter than others.

.......

Ignorant comment. I bet you get in a lot of arguments

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

KJV Only is a stupid solution for making stupid people feel smarter than others.

.......

So says the person who does not really have a Bible, nor a book that has all the correct or precise words of God in it.
I mean do you use Modern Bibles? If so, the very cover of your Modern Bible is lying to you.
It's not a Holy Bible meaning, it is not holy as in divine.
Your Modern Bible covers should say, "holey Bible" meaning, it is a book full of holes or errors.
That would be more honest if they did that. Then again, all kinds of deceptions exist in the Modern Bible Movement.
You just cannot see the forest for the trees on this topic because you have been conditioned that this is the way or the truth.


.....

 

[Dino246]

So says the person who does not really have a Bible, nor a book that has all the correct or precise words of God in it.
I mean do you use Modern Bibles? If so, the very cover of your Modern Bible is lying to you.
It's not a Holy Bible meaning, it is not holy as in divine.
Your Modern Bible covers should say, "holey Bible" meaning, it is a book full of holes or errors.
That would be more honest if they did that. Then again, all kinds of deceptions exist in the Modern Bible Movement.
You just cannot see the forest for the trees on this topic because you have been conditioned that this is the way or the truth.


.....

Your post demonstrates your heart. You don’t promote KJV-onlyism for the benefit of others, because if you did, you would not use stupid arguments. The fact that printers put “Holy Bible” on the cover of a KJV means nothing as to the content between the covers. In the same way, the absence of those words means nothing.

 

[HeirConditioned]

While I am not going to do an additional deep dive into this study right now to prove my point because I am busy with a rather lengthy writeup, I do have an older writeup that defends my viewpoint here.

I'm sorry you're too busy for me. I get that a lot.

If you're going to present an "older writeup that defends [your] viewpoint," forget it... I have scripture that defends the scriptural viewpoint that doesn't require any level of study, especially "deep diving." I couldn't imagine anything that can change what scripture clearly says.

But, you have answered my most pressing, albeit unasked, question... I'll leave your busy, lengthy posts in search of a shared love of scripture and brotherly respect.

Good luck.

 

[Genez]

Ignorant comment. I bet you get in a lot of arguments

I now walk away from them.

Like this!

 

[Genez]

So says the person who does not really have a Bible, nor a book that has all the correct or precise words of God in it.
I mean do you use Modern Bibles? If so, the very cover of your Modern Bible is lying to you.
It's not a Holy Bible meaning, it is not holy as in divine.
Your Modern Bible covers should say, "holey Bible" meaning, it is a book full of holes or errors.
That would be more honest if they did that. Then again, all kinds of deceptions exist in the Modern Bible Movement.
You just cannot see the forest for the trees on this topic because you have been conditioned that this is the way or the truth.

If you want the precise words?
You need to keep discipline in your life.
Because it will be a steady Bible study that requires avoiding distractions.

This pastor was so good that he taught six nights a week and studied hours during the day.
Teaching from the Hebrew, Greek... and Aramaic texts for certain passages.

Nobody advertised.
https://rbthieme.org/about-us

And money is never asked for.
https://rbthieme.org/about-us/grace-financial-policy

.....

 

[Watchman22]

If you want the precise words?
You need to keep discipline in your life.
Because it will be a steady Bible study that requires avoiding distractions.

This pastor was so good that he taught six nights a week and studied hours during the day.
Teaching from the Hebrew, Greek... and Aramaic texts for certain passages.

Nobody advertised.
https://rbthieme.org/about-us

And money is never asked for.
https://rbthieme.org/about-us/grace-financial-policy

.....

Gimme a break Genez,
I didn't say anything when you said He was your gifted teacher out of respect. But you need to open your eyes.

He doesn't have a clue what true NT faith and faithing is. So everything else He says is null and void.