Don't have to be.
If I did?
Then Jesus would not have told us we will know you by your fruit.
Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Don't have to be.
If I did?
Then Jesus would not have told us we will know you by your fruit.
You do realize that Jesus called others snakes and white washed tombs, right?
By what fruit are you referring to?
Please be specific.
....
We are all the heroes of our own story.
However, a true hero does not avoid or run away from truth.
What I mean by this is that you are not answering my questions on where your Bible is today that have all of the precise words of God.
I can point you to my Bible if you like and say to you that this is God's word and we should follow and obey it.
I can point to that Bible, and say this is the version of Jesus you should follow (which is the TR/KJV).
But where is your standard in following Jesus?
Where are the written set of his words that are perfect and is your standard so you can follow Jesus properly?
....
I don't doubt that you sincerely believe those doctrinal differences are significant, and I respect the amount of study you've clearly invested in the subject.
Where I would probably approach it differently is this: if someone claims that a particular reading teaches that Jesus sinned, promotes Arianism, or fundamentally alters the gospel, then I'd want to examine those passages one by one in their context rather than assuming the conclusion beforehand.
I think that's especially important because there are many believers who use modern translations and still affirm Christ's deity, His sinlessness, the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith, His bodily resurrection, and every major doctrine of the Christian faith.
So for me, the question isn't whether textual variants exist. They do.
The question is whether the doctrines actually rise or fall on those variants.
I also agree that people should do their own homework.
In fact, that's probably where we have the most common ground.
No pastor, scholar, apologist, or YouTube personality should be treated as the final authority.
Every claim should be tested.
I guess my hesitation is simply moving from: "There are important textual differences."
to: "Therefore everyone who disagrees is either deceived, compromised, or protecting an industry."
That's a leap I'm not yet prepared to make.
I'd rather deal with the specific passages and doctrinal claims one at a time and let the evidence speak for itself.
Irony of ironies...
They would have to be that bad to make the KJV look as good as you want it to be.
You like dragging people down....To build yourself up.
That is why the KJV Only rhetoric sits so well with you.
I don't think it is a large leap to make of what I am talking about here. The doctrines I speak of are not minor and to suggest that they have not affected people (When they already have) is also not true. Then there are the heretics who worked on shaping the text. With the new ECM giving us that new reading that says that Jesus became the I AM in Revelation in the UBS6 should be all the reason you need to jump ship and into the cozy tropical warm waters of the TR/KJV.
It's a spiritual issue and one can only see if one cares about doctrinal truth and one has eyes to see how these false doctrines have led many astray to believe them.
You also say that you prefer to take one issue at a time.
This is the problem or wrong approach. If the Bible is true in the KJV when it says in Psalms 12:6-7 in that the words of the Lord are pure words and they will be preserved forever, then logic dictates it is not just one little issue here and there. It will be two diametrically opposed texts fighting against each other. Two Bibles lines. One bad, and one good. Two trees in the garden. One bad, and one good. How do we know for sure?
The great many witnesses.
Patterns of evidence that keep saying the same thing over and over and over again and over again.
It's like how detective builds his case with many evidences (a pattern of evidence) that shows that the person did the crime.
It is no different with this topic.
We can see a PATTERN that is really really really bad in the Critical Text/Modern Bibles over and over and over and over again.
We can see a good pattern in the TR/KJV. Sure it is not perfect. There was also refinement, but then the TR line has become settled with the KJV. The KJV has made it possible for the TR we follow today.
Why would we follow the TR/KJV?
Is it just the doctrine?
No, its also the good fruit that this Bible line has produced, as well.
Three of the great revivals in history where the result of the KJV.
A unity and memorization over one text was unlike any other translation in human history.
The KJV is still considered one of the greatest literary achievements in human history.
The KJV is praised by folks who are not even KJV-only or TR-only.
200 plus idioms in the KJV are spoken in English speaking countries all over the world.
Its positive impact and influence cannot be fully calculated.
What else is there?
Would not God hold people accountable to a certain set standard?
If not, then there is no reason to really trust God.
....
I think there is an issue if one's Hebrew and Greek attempts to correct the KJV.
My goal is to build a bridge between the original languages using the older lexicons and connecting that bridge to the KJV.
This is very beneficial and helps to see things in the Bible and to make sure we are not misinterpreting the 1600's English of the King James Bible. I know. I have misunderstood the KJV in several places with my old KJV English only approach before.
Another issue also is which Greek text are we to follow?
I go with the underlying Greek text of the King James.
So obviously I would never correct the KJV because that is how I have my Greek to begin with.
Scrivener did an okay job with his Scrivener TR, but his work is not perfect. He left out a Greek word in Ephesians, among other things.
.....
Ah, the cats out of the bag.
Ever the persecuted person you are.
Sorry, we get persecuted for believing we have all the correct words of God.
I remember, when I was ganged up on like by a pack of wild dogs all laughing and insulting me because I believe the KJV was the only true or correct words of God in English.
A forum has even banned my passionate defense of the KJV as God's perfect words, and they had super strict rules that did not allow you to speak to others in even a slightly negative way. You had to just stick to the topic only. They banned the KJV-only topic and yet they allow discussions on other beliefs there that are heretical.
That should tell you something.
When freedom of speech is restricted, something wrong is going on.
....
Again, I challenge you to look into the matter.
Once you do, you will see the I am correct, unless of course you do not want to see it.
....
I absolutely believe God has preserved His word and that He holds us accountable to what He has revealed.
Where I hesitate is when preservation is defined as requiring one specific English translation or one specific printed Greek text.
You mentioned patterns, and I agree that patterns matter.
But patterns still have to be tested.
That's why I keep coming back to specific readings rather than broad conclusions.
If a text truly teaches that Christ sinned, teaches Arianism, or corrupts the gospel, then let's examine that text and see if the claim holds up.
I also don't dispute the enormous influence of the KJV.
Its impact on the English-speaking world is undeniable.
Its literary excellence is undeniable. God has used it mightily.
What I'm less convinced of is that God's preservation must therefore be limited to that one translation or text tradition.
God used the KJV powerfully, but He also used faithful believers before 1611 and after 1611.
I suppose my concern is that the argument sometimes moves from: "The KJV is trustworthy."
to: "Therefore every competing text tradition must be corrupt."
That's the step I'm still not persuaded by.
In the end, I want the same thing you do: confidence that God's words have been preserved and can be trusted.
We simply differ on how that preservation is best demonstrated.
May the Lord Jesus Christ (as depicted in the words of the TR/KJV) bless you.
I reject the version of Jesus found in the Critical Text and the Modernist English Bibles.
So if that is the version of Jesus you are blessing me with, then no thanks.
....
Printing was still relatively new when the KJV came out from God's perspective. The Gutenberg Bible came out in the 1450s. Eramus printed the first Greek text (that was publicly available) in 1516 (that was followed by the Reformation in 1517). There was definitely a stage of refinement with the TR editions, and English Bibles and even the KJV itself went through refinement to match the underlying Hebrew and Greek.
So when folks say, where was the Bible before 1611, the idea of a printed Bible was still relatively new.
In fact, printing made the Reformation successful. God was not surprised by any of this.
But why would God lead people to follow and believe and memorize the Bible that was settled for hundreds of years to just give them a shape shifting text and contradictory English translations later as His words? That does not sound even normal. How can conflicting words of God be even a standard? It just sounds like confusion.
I mean, you can see clearly one line was good, and one line is bad. It is not much of a stretch to see it.
Bad doctrines, heretics, and the sowing of confusion from not having a settle text is pretty obvious that it is the wrong Bible line.
A settle text that led to various reformations, and memorization, was the Bible public schools for hundreds of years and is still trusted and preached and believed on today all speak to the power of those very words.
Again if Jesus was correct about those jots and tittles involving Hebrew, then it makes sense that God would care about the smallest details even with a translation that can reach many in the world language. If this is not the case, then nobody can really be held accountable because if God cannot give us His words perfectly or precisely, then why should we trust them? Who gets to decide what variants or readings should be in or out? In other words, if we have a "Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible," then it is not God's word but the individual lording the authority over His word. That's just too much power for any one person to have.
Yes, I understand that textual criticism needed to happen at one time in the past. This is because God was getting His word ready and prepared during the time of printing. To get one Bible into the hands of many so that man would be without excuse as to what His words are. To say so otherwise undermines His very word.
....
Where I still pause is at one point.
I don't think the existence of textual variants necessarily means God has failed to preserve His word.
After all, long before 1611, believers were saved, discipled, and taught from manuscripts that were copied by hand and contained textual variations.
The question for me is whether God's promise of preservation requires a single final edition that ends all textual discussion, or whether preservation can be seen in the overwhelming stability of the text across generations despite those variations.
I also think we should be careful not to confuse a settled position with a proven position.
The KJV was unquestionably influential, and God used it in remarkable ways.
But God using something powerfully and that thing being the only legitimate text tradition are not necessarily the same argument.
What I do appreciate is your emphasis on accountability.
You're right that God is not the author of confusion, and Scripture must ultimately be clear enough for ordinary believers to know, trust, and obey.
I suppose where we differ is that you see the TR/KJV as the necessary conclusion of that principle, while I'm still asking whether the principle itself requires that conclusion. That's the step I'm still examining.
At the 11 minute mark of this video in my debate with Jeff Dollar in my defense of the KJV, I bring up Isaiah 34:16 and make my case that the "book of the LORD" is a book that will exist in the end times. I match up verses that are in Revelation with Isaiah 34. I also point out how this chapter was written to the Gentiles (i.e., the world).
What this means is that we will have a book of the LORD during the end times.
My point here is that there can only be ONE book of the Lord during the end times.
I believe we are nearing the end of days. How close? I don't know for sure, but each passing day draws us ever closer to the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.
.....
Isaiah 34:16 definitely speaks of a preserved and authoritative word from God, but I don't immediately see the passage identifying a particular language, translation, or printed edition.
What does resonate with me is your larger concern.
If God intends to hold His people accountable to His words, then those words must be accessible, knowable, and trustworthy.
That's a fair theological point and one worth wrestling with.
I suppose my question would be: does Isaiah 34:16 establish that God preserves His word, or does it establish which specific text tradition represents that preservation?
Those seem to be two separate conclusions.
Either way, I appreciate that you're trying to make a biblical argument rather than merely a historical one.
That's always a stronger place to start.
Again, we come right back to Jesus' own words. Jesus cared about the jots and tittles in the Hebrew text! We are talking about the smallest letters and strokes that make up the Hebrew writing. So, if God cared about even the smallest details of His Word back then, why would He suddenly become a radically different God today and give us some unhealthy McDonald's version of the Bible?
Granted, I do enjoy a Filet-O-Fish every now and then (especially when it comes fresh out of the fryer), but I certainly wouldn't want to live on that stuff! I know that a steady diet of such food would hardly be good for my physical health. And if I am that concerned about what goes into my physical body, how much more concerned should I be about what I am feeding myself spiritually? After all, Jesus said that man shall live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).
But with Modern Bibles, I would argue that we are dealing with something even worse than spiritual fast food. We are talking about McDumpsters! Some of their readings are so bad and so dark that I cannot even bring myself to read them anymore, unless it is for the purpose of exposing their errors.
....