Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Genez]

The Greek critical text (Nestle and Aland tradition) that underlies the Modern English Bibles teaches different doctrines and this Greek text is not even settled and is constantly shape-shifting. So it's not a real standard or settled text that Christians have received. It's like the shifting sands of the desert.

If you go to my site, www.affectionsabove.com, I have a PDF writeup (the one with the animated fall leaves in the background) that highlights the textual differences (i.e., the differences between Vaticanus/Sinaiticus (Nestle and Aland tradition) with the Beza 1598 Greek (the Received Text tradition). So this goes beyond just the English.



You keep stating this but you have not demonstrated any such problems here for us to examine. Are you just repeating what you heard? Did you even look into it and did an in-depth study on the matter independently of whoever told you this? See, generally in my experience Critical Text advocates are just sheep who blindly follow their own Modern scholar shepherds. This is why you keep promoting that deceased Pastor's teachings. You most likely never did a Berean manuever and double checked his findings or teachings in light of the word of God.



The problem is that many modern scholars have a bias toward the continually revised Critical Text, which I believe contains serious corruptions, while also relying upon modern Greek lexicons that sometimes give preference to broader definitions that are not necessarily justified by the historical usage of a word within its particular context. They will sometimes appeal to cognate studies or examples from nonbiblical Greek literature to defend questionable translation choices found in modern Bibles.

A famous example is the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs), which the KJV translates as “only begotten” when referring to Jesus Christ. Consider Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, BDAG, and Louw and Nida's Greek-English Lexicon. These lexicons variously emphasize broader definitions such as “unique,” “one of a kind,” “only,” or “one and only.” Moulton and Milligan even explicitly reject “only begotten” as the word's literal meaning.

However, there is an important distinction that should not be overlooked. The Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) can certainly express uniqueness in non-familial contexts, such as when describing the universe, the mythical phoenix, or other things that are one of their kind. But that does not automatically establish that the same generalized meaning should override the idea of offspring or begetting when the word is used within a father-and-child relationship.

For example, the Greek expression θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς (thygatēr monogenēs), meaning an only daughter (Luke 8:42), clearly refers to a parental relationship. Likewise, we have ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (ho monogenēs huios), “the only begotten Son” (John 1:18), and τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ (ton huion autou ton monogenē), “his only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

My point is that we should not allow a broader definition established from non-familial examples to automatically erase the significance of the Father-and-Son relationship in passages referring to Jesus Christ. The historical usage of the word, its immediate context, and its understanding among early Greek-speaking Christians must all be considered before anyone can legitimately dismiss the KJV's rendering of “only begotten Son” as inaccurate.


....

Tell us one thing you mentioned there that will build someone up in Christ.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Tell us one thing you mentioned there that will build someone up in Christ.

One thing?

I am talking about the Holy Scriptures themselves, and Jesus Christ said that the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). The Greek expression αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ (hai martyrousai peri emou) means "which testify concerning me." In fact, after His resurrection, Jesus expounded to His disciples the things concerning Himself throughout the Scriptures (Luke 24:27). So, how is examining the very Scriptures that testify of Jesus Christ not something that can build up believers in Christ?

Consider what the apostle Paul said in Acts 20:32: "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." The Greek expression τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (tō logō tēs charitos autou) refers to "the word of his grace," which Paul expressly says is able to ἐποικοδομῆσαι (epoikodomēsai), meaning "to build up." That is precisely what biblical edification involves! Furthermore, Paul said that the Holy Scriptures are able to make a person wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15). The Greek expression σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν (sophisai eis sōtērian) conveys being made wise unto salvation.

Paul then explained that all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), meaning "given by inspiration of God," and ὠφέλιμος (ōphelimos), meaning "profitable" or "beneficial," for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). And for what purpose? "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:17). Paul also taught that biblical instruction contributes to the "edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). The Greek expression is οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (oikodomēn tou sōmatos tou Christou). Furthermore, Paul connects Christian maturity with growing in the knowledge of the Son of God (Ephesians 4:13), warning believers against being "carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14), and instructing them to speak "the truth in love" so that they may grow up into Christ (Ephesians 4:15).

So, Scripture itself expressly establishes that God's Word can build up believers, instruct them in righteousness, strengthen their faith, and increase their knowledge of Jesus Christ. My discussion concerns the actual words of Scripture, the Greek text underlying our English Bibles, and the proper understanding of the biblical testimony concerning Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. Granted, knowledge must be accompanied by charity (1 Corinthians 8:1), and studying Scripture should ultimately lead us closer to Christ rather than merely winning arguments. But to suggest that examining and defending the accuracy of God's words cannot build up believers in Christ is something I strongly disagree with.

If Scripture testifies of Jesus Christ, and Scripture itself is profitable for doctrine and spiritual growth, then properly understanding and faithfully communicating its words is certainly a matter of Christian edification. You are welcome to challenge my actual findings concerning the Greek text and the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs). But please do not suggest that studying the very Scriptures that testify of our Lord Jesus Christ serves no spiritual purpose. After all, how can we properly build someone up in the truth of God's Word if we are unwilling to examine what that Word actually says?



.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Tell us one thing you mentioned there that will build someone up in Christ.

Also consider that the Modern Bibles paint a different version of Jesus that is not in the true Bible in English (along with its underlying inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words). Modern versions make it appear like Jesus sinned in five places. I even had a self professing Christian tell me that Jesus sinned and he pointed to one of these corrupted places in his Modern Bible as his proof text. How is that building up Christ to believe falsehoods about Jesus found in Modern versions? Would it not be better to build a person up in Christ properly with the truth that Jesus did not sin with the correct Bible that does not have the problems that Modern bibles have?

That's the plane that is flying over your head right now.

You can only know the errors in a Bible by having a standard or the correct one for comparison.
If the standard is ourselves picking what reading should be in or out when we are not qualified textual critics, then we are simply becoming our own authority over God's word, and that does not help you to be built up in Jesus Christ at all but can even potentially jeopardize your very standing with Him (Depending on what true words you reject from Him - See John 12:48 KJV).


....

 

[Genez]

Also consider that the Modern Bibles paint a different version of Jesus that is not in the true Bible in English (along with its underlying inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words). Modern versions make it appear like Jesus sinned in five places. I even had a self professing Christian tell me that Jesus sinned and he pointed to one of these corrupted places in his Modern Bible as his proof text. How is that building up Christ to believe falsehoods about Jesus found in Modern versions? Would it not be better to build a person up in Christ properly with the truth that Jesus did not sin with the correct Bible that does not have the problems that Modern bibles have?

That's the plane that is flying over your head right now.

You can only know the errors in a Bible by having a standard or the correct one for comparison.
If the standard is ourselves picking what reading should be in or out when we are not qualified textual critics, then we are simply becoming our own authority over God's word, and that does not help you to be built up in Jesus Christ at all but can even potentially jeopardize your very standing with Him (Depending on what true words you reject from Him - See John 12:48 KJV).


....

I do not use modern bibles for my study. Who does?

My pastor cited the King James and then sometimes spent hours in the Greek and Hebrew to get a clearer picture of what was said.

By you just citing principles and facts, you do nothing to build us up in the Word of God.

 

[Genez]

Consider what the apostle Paul said in Acts 20:32: "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." The Greek expression τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (tō logō tēs charitos autou) refers to "the word of his grace," which Paul expressly says is able to ἐποικοδομῆσαι (epoikodomēsai), meaning "to build up." That is precisely what biblical edification involves!

Precisely...

So why did you besmirch a pastor who studied and taught exegetically six nights a week?
To people WHO WANTED IT!

You did not even bother to find out why he concluded what he had.
It just turned you off.
That was enough for you...

Jesus suffered two deaths on the Cross. ​

​

Almost any English translation of Isaiah 53:9, it speaks of the death of the Messiah. ​

But in the original Hebrew, the word is not singular. It is plural.​

​

​

It does not say death, it says DEATHS.​

Did you know that?
Apparently not.

But you dismissed him as a kook.

........

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I do not use modern bibles for my study. Who does?

It appears that you just arrived on planet Earth.

First, many today use Modern Bibles for study. That's why its a billion dollar industry.
Second, you don't even know what your own ministry teaches.

https://legacy.thiemeministries.com/PDF/The_Trinity.pdf

All quotes in Thiem's book on the Trinity is from the NASB and when he quotes 1 John 5:7, he refers to the NASB 1977 critical text version that does not align with the KJV verse that has the Johannine Comma.

1 John 5:7 KJV (King James Bible)
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7 (NASB 1977)
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

This means he was for the Critical Text Greek (that align with Modern Bibles), and not for the Received Text Greek that underlies the KJV.

Side Note:

Do a word find search in the PDF above using the key words, "1 John 5" (Control + F - PC) (Command + F - MAC)

My pastor cited the King James and then sometimes spent hours in the Greek and Hebrew to get a clearer picture of what was said.

Your current living pastor or R. B. Thieme, Jr. who is now passed away? If you are referring to the late R. B. Thieme, Jr. (1918–2009), he used modern versions such as the NASB. So the very site you promote comes from a man who was a Modern Bible user.

By you just citing principles and facts, you do nothing to build us up in the Word of God.

Either you don't know how to read properly, or you simply skated past my posts without a care in the world and proceeded to repeat more of the same baseless rhetoric.

Please go back and actually read my posts very slowly and carefully before responding again. Otherwise, you can continue living in your own little bubble world of false assumptions.




....



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Precisely...

So why did you besmirch a pastor who studied and taught exegetically six nights a week?
To people WHO WANTED IT!

You did not even bother to find out why he concluded what he had.
It just turned you off.
That was enough for you...

Jesus suffered two deaths on the Cross. ​

​

Almost any English translation of Isaiah 53:9, it speaks of the death of the Messiah. ​

But in the original Hebrew, the word is not singular. It is plural.​

​

​

It does not say death, it says DEATHS.​

Did you know that?
Apparently not.

But you dismissed him as a kook.

........

Anyone who denies that the blood of Jesus Christ saves us is off their rocker.
I am sure there are many false teachers who put in long hours in teaching their nonsense.
Their dedication of teaching certain falsehoods does not make their teaching correct.



....

 

[Genez]

Your current living pastor or R. B. Thieme, Jr. who is now passed away? If you are referring to the late R. B. Thieme, Jr. (1918–2009), he used modern versions such as the NASB. So the very site you promote comes from a man who was a Modern Bible user.

He does not promote modern translations. In many of his live lessons he began with reading from the KJV.
In his books he may have cited the NASB to give the reader a point of reference.

The irony is that you what you claim about modern translations is why he would devote a good part of his lessons correcting what modern and KJV renderings presented. In some cases, he would humorously flunk the translator.

He was very much on your side, and encouraged teachers to become devoted students of the original languages.

 

[PaulThomson]

You are imposing a rigid distinction upon two Greek words for love that the apostle John himself does not consistently maintain in his writings.

I have used a distinction made by Kenneth J. Wuest in his series of books called Bypaths in the Greek New Testament, where He points out that at the time of the inauguration of the New Covenant agapaO was a rarely used word , which the apostles adopted into their teaching. Wuest explains the distinction in his studies on koinE Greek. He was a reputable Greek. http://www.theologue.org/KennethWuestBio.html

Four Greek Words for Love -- By: Kenneth S. Wuest​

https://www.galaxie.com/article/bsac116-463-06?highlight=university of saint joseph ​

Therefore, these Greek words cannot be rigidly separated into your proposed categories of treasuring someone versus merely liking someone.

I did not say that phileO means "merely liking someone." You can have an affection for someone that is based on having areas of commonality or likeness, where that overlap of commonality is almost complete, but the affection is a pleasure gained from sharing the same interests and attitudes. That does not mean that one cannot also have an affection for the same person that is based on recognising their intrinsic value. Your argument that John writes of Jesus as having both philos and agapE for John, does not merge the philos and agapE into a single kind of love. I have both a Toyota Aqua and a Ford Ranger. They are both vehicles. That does not make them mutually interchangeable terms.

Interestingly, under phileō, LSJ also cites Homer's Iliad (9.343), where the word is used concerning a man's love for his wife, with the lexicon explaining the meaning as "cherishes her."

Yes, I can cherish my wife because I am enjoying the reality that we have many interests and activities and perspectives that we share in common. But I can also cherish my wife because I recognise that she is made in God's image, carries in her body the Holy Spirit and is playing an important role in God's plan for the world. Because she has an exalted intrinsic worth. My affection for her need not be one or the other. They are not mutually exclusive.

(4). The Syriac Peshitta

Furthermore, Jesus and Peter were speaking either Aramaic or Hebrew rather than Greek during this conversation. Interestingly, the ancient Syriac Peshitta uses the same Aramaic root, ܪܚܡ (rḥm), meaning "to love," throughout John 21:15–17, without distinguishing between agapaō and phileō. While this does not establish their original audible spoken words, it provides additional historical evidence against your proposed distinction.

When the Holy Spirit has John use both phileO and AgapaO in the same passage, even if Jesus and Peter were using one Aramaic word that bundles agapE and philos together, might we not consider that the Holy Spirit, who sees the hearts of men, knew what was going on in the hearts of Jesus and Peter in this exchange. Did the Holy Spirit know that Peter and Jesus were speaking at cross purposes, Jesus asking one thing, "Do you love Me for being your Creator, out of a recognition of My intrinsic worth?" But Peter thought Jesus was asking, " Do you love Me as fellow human being, as a friend?"
Could it be that when Jesus asked Him the third time, "Do you love Me as fellow human being, as a friend?" Peter thought Jesus was indicating that He did not at all trust Peter's assurances of friendship, man to man. So, Peter confessed "Lord, You know all things..." inadvertently confessing his recognition of Jesus' deity and by implication recognising His supreme worth.

Perhaps Peter's affection for Jesus was based on His experience of Jesus' perfect humanity, based on Peter's experience of Jesus as his perfect pastor/teacher. Perhaps Peter was not yet able to have affection for Jesus as Almighty God, because in His mind God meant "holy Judge who knows how flawed I am", and on the level of Jesus' deity, Peter's reaction to Jesus when He looked at Him as being God, was not affection, but trepidation/fear. So He kept focussing on Jesus in His humanity. Perhaps it would take Jesus teaching and pastoring Peter for another 40 days, for Peter to realise that God was not a perfectionist King but a patient, long-suffering, and forgiving Father, and tio have affection for Jesus as He embraced Him being also God.

 

[Genez]

It appears that you just arrived on planet Earth.

First, many today use Modern Bibles for study. That's why its a billion dollar industry.
Second, you don't even know what your own ministry teaches.

https://legacy.thiemeministries.com/PDF/The_Trinity.pdf

All quotes in Thiem's book on the Trinity is from the NASB and when he quotes 1 John 5:7, he refers to the NASB 1977 critical text version that does not align with the KJV verse that has the Johannine Comma.

You missed the beginning words.

This book is edited from the lectures and unpublished notes of R. B. Thieme, Jr.

The original messages almost always referenced the KJV.
I have yet to hear him give a lesson beginning with the NASB

Why they chose that route I can not tell you.

He almost always cited the KJV in the unedited original classes.

 

[Genez]

Anyone who denies that the blood of Jesus Christ saves us is off their rocker.
I am sure there are many false teachers who put in long hours in teaching their nonsense.
Their dedication of teaching certain falsehoods does not make their teaching correct.

He never denies the blood of Christ.

Yet, I bet you believe that Jesus physically bled to death.

Did he?

He declared salvation had already been completed while he was yet physically alive.
He declared out loud - "Tetelestai" - It is FINISHED!"
That was stated before he died physically.

RBT was brave enough to face the religious crowd and explain what the term "Blood of Christ" means.

Was he a lamb? No.
Yet what a lamb symbolically went through was symbolic of what Jesus actually went through.
Likewise for the term "blood." What did the blood represent? = DEATH.

Just the same...
Jesus never bled to death.
That is why Pilate was shocked to find out Jesus had already died.

Instead, Jesus voluntarily breathed out his last.
The death that saves Jesus experienced while yet hanging on the cross while physically alive.
His death was the Father forsaking him while he bore our sins.
Our sins cutting him off from the Father!
Making him dead to the Father by means of a spiritual connection.

That is why Jesus would not utter the word "Father" while out sins cut him off from fellowship with the Father.
He was forced to resort to the generic term... "My God. My God!"

Has that ever been pointed out to you before?

In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT, edited by Gerhard Kittel), ​

calling a term like blood (haima) a "pregnant" term means it is laden with deep, dense, ​

and multi-layered theological significance far beyond its basic literal or biological definition.​

We need to stop limiting everything and making it on the level for the baby Christian.
It must go beyond what is simplistic if we are to mature.

 

[PaulThomson]

Did you catch that? Even LSJ recognizes that phileō can express cherishing someone, rather than merely liking someone!

Yes, both Philos and agapaE can produce cherishing. But the prompt for the cherishing is different. The prompt for the affection/cherishing in philos is commonality, being like the loved person. Theprompt for the affection/cherishing in agapE is a recognition or attribution of intrinsic value to the one being loved. The fact that both entail cherishing/affection does not make them the same.

Therefore, these Greek words cannot be rigidly separated into your proposed categories of treasuring someone versus merely liking someone.

Again. I never used the expression "merely liking someone". One can like someone (phileO) intensely because the mutual commonalities are voluminous. One can also treasure someone weakly because the value one attributes to the other is positive but not immense.

(2). Johannes Scapula, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (1628)

Now consider an older Greek lexicon representing the Greek scholarship much closer to the time of the KJV translators. Under ἀγαπάω (agapaō), Scapula gives the Latin definitions: "Amo, diligo. " Meaning: "To love, to hold dear."

No disagreement from me there. Those are elements of having affection based on attributing intrinsic worth to someone.

He also states: "De honesto & inhonesto amore usurpatur." Meaning that the word is used of both honorable and dishonorable love.

No disgreement there either. You can attribute intrinsic value to someone for dishonourable reasons. A mafia don can highly value an assassin for his brutality.

Now consider what Scapula says under φιλέω (phileō): "Amicus sum, amo, diligo." Meaning: "I am a friend, I love, I hold dear."
Notice something particularly important here!

Scapula employs the exact same two Latin words, amo and diligo, when defining both Greek verbs!

He does not restrict phileō to merely liking someone, nor does he restrict agapaō to treasuring someone because of some perceived intrinsic value.

I notice that you cited Scapula's definition of agapaO: "Amo, diligo." But you only cited an example of phileO being used, not his definition. Intrinsic to his example is that phieO means "I am a friend." That's not something he applied to agapaO. Yes, a friendship also includes amo, and diligo. But the prompt is friendship, commonality, not intrinsic value.

The biblical evidence in my first response already demonstrated that the apostle John used these two Greek verbs interchangeably when describing the same loving relationships.

You did not at all prove "that the apostle John used these two Greek verbs interchangeably when describing the same loving relationships."

What you showed was that the apostle John used these two Greek verbs to describe relationships between the same two people." If I describe the relationship between two people as expensive, and also as taxing, that does not mean that I think expensive and taxing mean the same thing.

II. Side Note: Is Phileō Supposed to Be Some Inferior Kind of Love?​

You are treating phileō as though it were some cheap, unhealthy Filet-O-Fish from McDonald's, as if Peter were offering Jesus some inferior, second-rate kind of love! ..... If Jesus was supposedly asking Peter about two distinctly different kinds of love, then why didn't Peter acknowledge that distinction in his answers? Why did he consistently use phileō all three times while twice answering Jesus in the affirmative, saying, "Yea, Lord"?

I did use the word "downgrade" to describe what Peter did in confessing phileO to Jesus' agapaO. That ma be why you think I consider philos to be a lesser love that agapE. But that does not at all imply "cheap, unhealthy" or "inferior, second-rate kind of love". What I meant to convey was that Peter resiled from confessing agapE but was comfortable with confessing philos, and so from His point of view he was confessing a love that fell short of agapE. However, as I continued in my previous post, as I discussed your Aramaic argument, my ideas developed regarding what was going on between Peter and Jesus, and Peter was not aware of what Jesus was thinking as he asked in Aramaic, but the Holy Spiriut was aware, and conveyed that by choosing to use different words for Jesus'toughts and Peter's thoughts. Perhaps, Peter was not aware that Jesus was asking a different question the third time, but Jesu would have delivered it intoned differently to make His point.
Peter, do you love Me ? I do phileO You ?
Peter, do you love Me ? I do phileO You ?
Peter, do you love Me ? You know all things. You know that I phileO you.

III. Final Remarks Regarding Your Interpretation:​

So you are not only going against the scholarly judgment of the KJV translators, who were exceptionally well-trained in the original biblical languages, but you are also going against the historical lexical evidence provided by recognized Greek scholars. Were all these scholars somehow mistaken until you came along and discovered the correct meanings? Yeah, okay.

I have agreed with Scapula. I think you have misrepresented him, and have also read your own opinions into the comments of other scholars.

It seems that you are promoting a private interpretation of these Greek words without sufficient historical or lexical justification.

I am proposing a different understanding of John's Greek text from that which is from my perspective the private (one own) interpretation of the KJV scholars. My proposal is also, from others' perspectives, a private (my own) interpretation. The Holy Spirit is the only qualified interpreter of scripture, because He is the One who carried along the authors and gave them utterance. It is up to each reader to seek the Holy Spirit's interpretation for themselves. Which of us does the Holy Spirit agree with?

Worse yet, your proposed distinction does not even fit the immediate context of John 21:15–17! That is how problematic your interpretation really is.

I have shown how I see the distinction playing out in the dialogue. Readers can decide whether I am proposing what the Holy Spirit intended by the use of the two different loves in the mouths of the two men at different stages of the conversation, or whether He suddenly lost interest in crafting and preserving every jot or tittle, something you sp often insist He is red hot on when it comes to the KJV..

Please return to the classical Greek authorities and examine how these words were actually used, rather than imposing a rigid distinction that the evidence does not establish. Otherwise, you can simply assign whatever meanings you prefer to the biblical text and make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.

I am basing my understanding on Kenneth J Wuest's explanation of how these two words were distinguished in classical Greek. I have found his distinctions useful and consistently coherent whan applied to the Greek NT text.

You seem to be employing whatever harebrained idea enters your head concerning what you think the Greek says, based upon your own private interpretations, without providing sufficient historical or lexical justification. You are not supplying reputable Greek lexical sources, direct quotations, links, historical references, or commentaries to substantiate your unusual claims.

Instead, you appear to be imposing your own preferred meanings upon the Greek text without adequately demonstrating that those meanings are supported by historical Greek usage or the immediate biblical context.

I'm not convinced that you are qualified to determine which ideas are hair-brained or not. I am content to try hard to convey as clearly as possible what I understand from the Greek and Hebrew text of scripture and to let readers ask the Holy Spirit whether He thinks my suggestions are sound. I am also happy to field objections candidly.