Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

  • 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.
Bible_Highlighter said:
Is it the understanding of Greek-speaking scholars who live and teach in Greece?
Click to expand...
Hey , I resemble that remark😂
Bible_Highlighter said:
You are not giving me any kind of objective standard, either. What standard are you using to determine what these words actually mean? Is it the understanding of the KJV translators? Is it the understanding of Greek-speaking scholars who live and teach in Greece? Is it the historical testimony of Greek and English lexicons? Or is it simply your own interpretation, along with that of others who belong to a movement influenced by German Rationalism, which has encouraged doubt rather than faith in Scripture?
Click to expand...
The objective standard is not my interpretation, your interpretation, the KJV translators, modern scholars in Greece, or any particular lexicon.
The objective standard is the text itself in its context, with Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Lexicons and translators can be useful tools, but they are not inspired.
The KJV translators themselves would not have claimed infallibility for their explanations.
Likewise, the fact that I speak modern Greek does not automatically make me an authority on Koine Greek any more than speaking modern English makes someone an authority on Shakespearean English.

The real question is whether your interpretation can be demonstrated from the text, not whether you can cite authorities who agree with it.
 
  • Heart
  • Like
Reactions: GRACE_ambassador and DavidLamb
Bible_Highlighter said:
While part of you may genuinely believe that you are willing to reconsider your beliefs if the evidence shows that you are wrong, I believe that, at this point in time, there is a stronger part of you that simply refuses to allow that to happen.

You have given me no indication that you are even willing to deal with the actual words that I posted from New Testament Scripture.

If I am wrong, then why not ask several different AI systems and other believers who oppose your position to examine every word in each Scriptural point I brought up? Why not investigate how believers throughout history have understood and defined these words in both Greek and English? How do Greek-speaking professors who live and teach in Greece understand these particular Greek words?

You are not giving me any kind of objective standard, either. What standard are you using to determine what these words actually mean? Is it the understanding of the KJV translators? Is it the understanding of Greek-speaking scholars who live and teach in Greece? Is it the historical testimony of Greek and English lexicons? Or is it simply your own interpretation, along with that of others who belong to a movement influenced by German Rationalism, which has encouraged doubt rather than faith in Scripture?


....
Click to expand...
Telling someone he is wrong does no good unless you also tell him what is right.

At least... it might prove helpful for the others reading along.
 
  • Heart
Reactions: GRACE_ambassador
ThomasMatthew said:
Yes, I'm aware of the KJV.
I don't know what a KJV believer is.
Click to expand...
A "KJV believer" can mean different things depending on who is using the term.
Some people simply mean someone who prefers to read and study the King James Version.
Others use it to describe a person who believes the KJV is the best English translation.
Still others use it for those who hold a "KJV-Only" position, meaning they believe the KJV is the only legitimate English Bible or that other translations are corrupt.
Because the term is used in different ways, it's usually better to ask the person what they mean by it rather than assume.
If someone called me a "KJV believer," I would probably ask: "Do you mean that I use the KJV, that I prefer the KJV, or that I believe the KJV is the only valid Bible?" Those are three very different claims
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb, PaulThomson and Dino246
When I started out as a baby Christian I found the archaic English of the King James difficult to understand
and easy to misunderstand because it requires that we imagine what it is meaning..

It was before I knew about the Greek and Hebrew texts.
I actually thought it was the pastor's job to exegete the King James English so we can understand it today.

It is filled with anachronisms.

Anachronisms tied to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible generally fall into two categories: ​
translational anachronisms (where 1611 British culture was projected back into ancient times) ​
and linguistic anachronisms (where modern readers misinterpret archaic 17th-century English ​
terms through a 21st-century lens).​

It is a perfect tool for confusion.

Sorry to say...
That is why I believe Satan pushes it so hard on naive believers.
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
How did I know you would just hit the disagree button?
Click to expand...
Disagreeing while giving an explanation for the disagreement is not to "just hit the disagree button". I am noticing that when you cannot come up with a coherent and cogent rebuttal to posters comments you head for the comfort foods available to you at the logical fallacy and emotional manipulation bistro.

You seem to have invested a lot during your lifetime into promoting and defending the KJV as a Holy Spirit inspired translation. You need to sacrifice your dogmatism in that regard, or you will be stuck circling your wagons around that idol for the rest of your days, and wearing yourself into a rut that will become ever deeper, until it becomes an abysmal canyon you may never be able to think beyond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC
PaulThomson said:
Disagreeing while giving an explanation for the disagreement is not to "just hit the disagree button". I am noticing that when you cannot come up with a coherent and cogent rebuttal to posters comments you head for the comfort foods available to you at the logical fallacy and emotional manipulation bistro.

You seem to have invested a lot during your lifetime into promoting and defending the KJV as a Holy Spirit inspired translation. You need to sacrifice your dogmatism in that regard, or you will be stuck circling your wagons around that idol for the rest of your days, and wearing yourself into a rut that will become ever deeper, until it becomes an abysmal canyon you may never be able to think beyond.
Click to expand...

KJV Only has become a form of idol worship.

My pastor said several times.
A genius who becomes arrogant makes him stupid.

Some can have many facts laid out.
And then claim it must add up to being truth.
 
OMC said:
Hey , I resemble that remark😂

The objective standard is not my interpretation, your interpretation, the KJV translators, modern scholars in Greece, or any particular lexicon.
The objective standard is the text itself in its context, with Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Lexicons and translators can be useful tools, but they are not inspired.
The KJV translators themselves would not have claimed infallibility for their explanations.
Likewise, the fact that I speak modern Greek does not automatically make me an authority on Koine Greek any more than speaking modern English makes someone an authority on Shakespearean English.

The real question is whether your interpretation can be demonstrated from the text, not whether you can cite authorities who agree with it.
Click to expand...
Either your logic is flawed or you are simply biased towards Modern textual liberalism that ultimately can be traced back to German Rationalism. If it was a matter of life and death for a translation any rational person would not use a Chinese scholar who was not fluent in Modern English to translate 1600s Jacobean English writings.

Then again, when folks here in this forum say stupid things like, doctrine has nothing to do with the manuscripts themselves, or heretics have zero to very little influence over textual choices or preference on manuscripts, we have reached an all time high level of deception, just like the radical left lunatics and Left wing media outlets in our country who have Trump derangement syndrome or anti-freedom, or anti-conservative values.


....
 
Bible_Highlighter said:
Either your logic is flawed or you are simply biased towards Modern textual liberalism that ultimately can be traced back to German Rationalism. If it was a matter of life and death for a translation any rational person would not use a Chinese scholar who was not fluent in Modern English to translate 1600s Jacobean English writings.

Then again, when folks here in this forum say stupid things like, doctrine has nothing to do with the manuscripts themselves, or heretics have zero to very little influence over textual choices or preference on manuscripts, we have reached an all time high level of deception, just like the radical left lunatics and Left wing media outlets in our country who have Trump derangement syndrome or anti-freedom, or anti-conservative values.


....
Click to expand...
You've shifted from answering the argument to questioning motives and associations.

Whether someone is influenced by German Rationalism, Byzantine traditionalism, modern textual criticism, or KJV-onlyism does not determine whether his interpretation is correct. The question remains the same: Can the interpretation be demonstrated from the text?
If a modern Greek scholar, a KJV translator, a church father, or a lexicon agrees with your position, that may be supportive evidence, but none of them are the final authority. Scripture is.
I also agree that doctrine can influence textual preferences.
Church history demonstrates that theological disputes often affected how manuscripts were valued, copied, and defended.
But that observation alone does not prove that a particular reading is right or wrong.
It simply means we must examine the evidence carefully.

My concern is that once we start labeling everyone who disagrees as deceived, liberals, rationalists, heretics, or politically motivated, the discussion stops being about exegesis and starts becoming about tribes.
Scripture is not settled by guilt by association.

So I return to the same point: the decisive question is not, "What school influenced this scholar?"
The decisive question is, "What does the text actually say in its context?"
If your interpretation is correct, it should be able to stand on that foundation regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it.
 
Genez said:
KJV Only has become a form of idol worship.
Click to expand...
KJV-only in some circles can place the KJV on a higher pedestal than what it actually is by saying it was inspired or it went through some kind of double inspiration or that the KJV English can somehow correct the Hebrew and Greek.

Besides Mike Hoggard making claims that he worships the KJV, I have not met any others who made the same claim. So I do not see KJV believers telling me that they bowed down to their KJV the other day and treated it like it was some kind of talisman where God resides or as if it was a magical statue to be reverred or prayed to as if was God Himself.

The Bible is like a love letter and it conveys the mind of God or His thoughts or words for us. To attack those words is to attack the mind, thoughts, or words of God. If the KJV is the words of God in English (which I believe it is) then you would be against God Himself and His words. If Christians mistreated those words, that is on them. I mean, you do realize that God had Moses make a serpent on a pole and it was used as a means to save his people, right? Yet, later they turned it into an idol. That does not undo it's original purpose. The same is true of the Bible. If people make it out to be something that it is not, then they are at fault and not God. Sure, you may not believe the KJV is God's words in 1600s English, but then what words do you believe best represents those words? Is not your own mind the rule or bench mark to formulate your own version of God's words in your head? I mean, for you, don't you have to pick which reading should be in or out in the Bible? That is idol worship of man's thoughts and His way of thinking of what God should say and it differs between one Critical Text advocate to the next. There is no standard and so there is just confusion on what God has said. There is no agreement over God's words which is just silly and dumb. How can God hold anyone accountable under this paradigm?

Genez said:
My pastor said several times.
A genius who becomes arrogant makes him stupid.
Click to expand...
We are not living the days of the early apostles. Just read the Bible for your self and study it on your own with the help of the Holy Spirit. Most churches today teach some kind of false doctrine in my experience or have some kind of wrong belief. So instead of saying, "My pastor said", you should be saying more, "The Bible says" to discuss these matters. The thing is that the Modern Bible Movement belief cannot be found in the New Testament. You do not see Jesus and His followers arguing over textual variants or doubting if those words should be in Scripture, etcetera.

Genez said:
Some can have many facts laid out.
And then claim it must add up to being truth.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is what the Modern Bible Movement does.
There are so many deceptions within this movement, you could do a whole volume set Encyclopedia series on it.
Then again, those within this movement and who are addicted like a drug addict to chop up the Bible in their own minds cannot see the forest for the trees because of their addiction. When a person gets a rush out of slicing and dicing God's holy words, they cannot help themselves. The lust of mutilating and twisting the Scriptures becomes pleasurable to them. This is why we are in the last days. If you don't believe just search AI and ask for links. Say you want an answer from a TR/KJV perspective and see how it stands under scrutiny from the Critical Text side. But will you do that? It depends on your addiction or how far deep in you are.



....



....
 
OMC said:
You've shifted from answering the argument to questioning motives and associations.

Whether someone is influenced by German Rationalism, Byzantine traditionalism, modern textual criticism, or KJV-onlyism does not determine whether his interpretation is correct. The question remains the same: Can the interpretation be demonstrated from the text?
If a modern Greek scholar, a KJV translator, a church father, or a lexicon agrees with your position, that may be supportive evidence, but none of them are the final authority. Scripture is.
I also agree that doctrine can influence textual preferences.
Church history demonstrates that theological disputes often affected how manuscripts were valued, copied, and defended.
But that observation alone does not prove that a particular reading is right or wrong.
It simply means we must examine the evidence carefully.

My concern is that once we start labeling everyone who disagrees as deceived, liberals, rationalists, heretics, or politically motivated, the discussion stops being about exegesis and starts becoming about tribes.
Scripture is not settled by guilt by association.

So I return to the same point: the decisive question is not, "What school influenced this scholar?"
The decisive question is, "What does the text actually say in its context?"
If your interpretation is correct, it should be able to stand on that foundation regardless of who agrees or disagrees with it.
Click to expand...
Buddy look. All forms of texts have a mind behind them. We can test to see what would be an obvious corruption by looking at patterns of bad changes over and over and over and over and over and over again. That is what my one writeup has demonstrated clearly (although the writeup is under revision to match it up with the original languages with the older lexicons). Texts do not just appear out of thin air. There is a mind at work that is behind those words. When we see bad doctrines that fits a pattern (just like detectives see patterns to solve various crimes), we are led to the obvious conclusion that one text is pure and the other is corrupt. Well, that is if you believe verses like Psalms 12:6-7, etcetera. If not, then this whole convo is going to go in one ear and out the other. It would be as if I am speaking a foreign language to you. If you and your gang are promoting corrupted versions of God's words (which I believe you are), then there is a dark spirit at work that is blinding you to seeing the promises of God in Scripture in the purity and preservation of His words. Those verses do not live on the inside of you and so you will fight against them. We see warnings of not hearing God in Scripture. The man of God who was killed by a lion because he did not listen to God but he listened to a man instead. That's how I see your movement. You listen to men and scholars and not what God's word actually says when it comes to purity and preservation of his own words. This is not an argument I am attempting to win with you here. Only God can open your eyes to the truth on such verses. If you reject them, well, you will have to explain to the Lord Jesus why you did so. It's just that simple.


Side Note:

Are there accidental slips that may have happened in the biblical text? Yeah, I am sure. But then you act like there is no intentional bad changes in the Bible throughout history, though. If you look at the patterns as I was alluding to before, it doesn't really take a rocket scientist to figure it out.


....
 
Genez said:
Telling someone he is wrong does no good unless you also tell him what is right.

At least... it might prove helpful for the others reading along.
Click to expand...
What I said was to get the person to approach this from an unbiased perspective. There is no unity over one text or memorization in Scripture in the Modern Bible Movement. There is confusion over what the Bible says and everyone has their own tailored made Bible in their own head. What is right and correct is following what God actually said and we can trace those words that have been received already. We are not still looking for those words as if we do not precisely have them. It is nonsense to say we do not precisely have the words of God. If that was true, then the Bible could not be trusted because there is no such animal. It would be one guy arguing about what the Bible says with another guy who thinks the same way. Everyone has jigsaw puzzle Bibles that all differ in their heads and so there is no authority or standard.

Anyway, I mentioned AI only as a means for a person to check the truth for themselves and to get those links to verify the truth.
I don't want them to stop searching for the truth. I don't want them to paint one narrative or side. I want them to believe God's word and then search for reasons to back that up.



....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Genez
Bible_Highlighter said:
KJV-only in some circles can place the KJV on a higher pedestal than what it actually is
Click to expand...
imho, puny man cannot do What The Omnipotent God Did, Placing His
Preserved Word Above All, eh?:​
​
"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name For Thy Loving-​
kindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy WORD Above All Thy Name."​

And, simpletons still do not see the necessity Of The Blessed Holy Spirit Teacher
being replaced by "foreign language scholarship"???:

"It would be as if I am speaking a foreign language to you." Amen!

​
Amen!!
 
Genez said:
You're used to advising baby Christians, I see.
Click to expand...
So are you aware that your movement is traced to Westcott and Hort ultimately?
Do you care that they fellowedshipped with a Unitarian?
Are you aware that their pet Unitarian (George Vance Smith) wrote a book saying theologically doctrines were changed in the Revised Version? He wrote about how those changes favored his Unitarianism (Which pleased him).

Are you aware of Carlo Maria Martini?
Are you aware that the 27th edition of Nestle and Aland says it was supervised by the Vatican?
Are you aware of the 25 Catholic ideas that exist in Modern Bibles that have grown since the Westcott and Hort's Revised Version?
What about stupid new ECM reading that has changed UBS6 edition to say that Jesus has become the I AM?
Do you just bury your head in the sand to such nonsense?
Why does Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say that Jesus was stabbed by a spear BEFORE He gave up His spirit?
Our Greek text (TR) says that Jesus BY HIMSELF purged us of our sins.
Yet, your Vaticanus does not say that.
There is no other doctrine or words like that exactly, either.
Is this just baby talk stuff?


....
 
GRACE_ambassador said:
imho, puny man cannot do What The Omnipotent God Did, Placing His
Preserved Word Above All, eh?:​
​
"I will worship toward Thy holy temple, and praise Thy Name For Thy Loving-​
kindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou Hast Magnified Thy WORD Above All Thy Name."​

And, simpletons still do not see the necessity Of The Blessed Holy Spirit Teacher
being replaced by "foreign language scholarship"???:

"It would be as if I am speaking a foreign language to you." Amen!

​
Amen!!
Click to expand...
In my PDF writeup, I demonstrate or show the proof that the KJV was not finished in 1611. It may have been 1638 that this took place. See the bottom of my writeup, "Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?" There was some refinement of the KJV in English to match it with the underlying Hebrew, and Greek over several KJV editions. Somehow I seem to be the only one on the TR/KJV side who is currently pointing this out. Again, I see the KJV is a providential translation that is without error, but I do not see it as inspired on the same level as say the underlying original languages that we have today.

I believe the standardized KJV we have today is without error.
The underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV are the inspired words of God its most purest way.
There is no indication that God inspired the KJV entirely.
Is there some inspiration that may shine through in that it renders the meaning in the KJV perfectly in some places?
Sure, I am not denying that, but I don't see this for all the words.

For example: The KJV says Jupiter in Acts 14:12 and yet it says Dia in Greek (the accusative of Zeus). This is not an error, but it is interpretatio Romana. My point is that I would not say that "Jupiter" was an inspired word here.



....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back