Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Bible_Highlighter]

He won't stop as long as you keep responding to him. He just wants someone to debate with; he's not interested in anyone else's belief.

Sorry, we are not talking about a disputed passage that could be read either way that does not deal with important doctrine or a meaning on a particular unclear word in Hebrew or Greek.

We are talking about one Bible line that has many corrupt doctrines, heretics helping to shape its text, confusion as a result of having no settled Greek text, and contradictory Modern English translations.

Only those who do not care about truth or those who like chopping up the Bible in their own minds (like a drug addict) is not going to see the light of what I am talking about here.

Anyone with an internet connection and an AI with asking it for links can verify the truth for themselves.
Those who are lazy and dumb and will fall for such baseless words that you provided here and will of course high five your comments mindlessly.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Jesus knew they would misunderstand, and he wanted them to leave.

Jesus was a rabbi. They were seeking new works from him for them to do for salvation.

So Jesus zapped them with a work he knew would totally turn them off and get them to stop following him.

​

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—​

they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.​

” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who ​

would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come ​

to me unless the Father has enabled them.”​

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. John 6:63-66​

​

Jesus weeded his garden that day.

While there are those who accepted a false Jesus, or believed a different gospel, or those who may fake a belief in Jesus for some other secret and bad or selfish carnal purpose, there are those who believe correctly in the beginning and then later fall away.

Luke 8:13 (KJV)

"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away."


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

For those who are “translators”, translating the Greek into English, yes, of course. It doesn’t take a genius to know that. But the question in the thread is, “ is it NECESSARY for “believers”? That means ordinary readers of the Bible—not TRANSLATORS of the Bible’s. “Believers” and “TRANSLATORS” are not necessarily all the same people. While all “translators “ may be “believers”, not all “believers” are “translators.” Don’t confuse what the thread is asking.

The Holy Spirit wrote in Eph. 3:4, and Paul said that he received hIS knowledge about the gospel of Christ by “REVELATION” and WHEN YOU READ, YOU MAY UNDERSTAND MY KNOWLEDGE….Who is the “YOU” that Paul is talking about? It’s you, me, and WHOEVER may read. Yes, and even TRANSLATORs! Neither Paul, nor the Holy Spirit, nor God, nor Jesus Christ ever say ANYTHING about needing a knowledges of the Greek language in order to “understand” what they were saying. To make that a “requirement” in order to understand their message is not true and is an insult to the Trinity.

Also, what do you do with Jupiter in Acts 14:12 in the KJV?
The underlying Greek word is Dia (the accusative of Zeus).
While it is not an error because it is interpretatio Romana, we do have to realize that your average person reading the KJV with an English only approach is not going to know this is actually a reference to Zeus.

Note: Please understand I believe the KJV is without error and it should be the only English Bible we preach in churches today.
But by going by the English alone will lead you to conclude the wrong thing because it is a 400 year old book and the Textus Receptus, and KJV translators lived in a world heavily steeped in Latin scholarship.


....

 

[Lovette]

Readability is one of the reasons why many attack the KJV.
But by doing so, there is a large part of the story that you are leaving out in the process.

The Critical Text/Modern Bibles are the new kids on the block and it is filled with heretics, liberals, bad doctrines, etcetera. The fruit of this movement has not been unity (despite so called easier to understand versions). You cannot even memorize the Bible in this movement because there is no settled text. You say all Bibles have errors, which then means everyone must slice and dice God's word to their liking.

The Received Text was born within the time of the Reformation, and has culminated in the KJV that has led to the three greatest revivals, and became the standard English Bible among Christians for hundreds of years. It was the Bible that brought unity over one text and memorization of God's word in English. It's positive impact on history cannot be fully calculated.

So I would rather have words that are harder to study and have all the correct words of God between two covers than have a Bible full of errors and bad doctrines, and that is tied to liberals and heretics that came later in history.


Side Note:

The Modern Bible also tries to gaslight the public Christian world by saying that the TR is based on entirely late manuscripts. Just go to my website www.affectionsabove.com and you will see that is a lie.



.....


.....

Well I use NKJV, the only bible in paper I have. And it's not about readablity, I've explained to you that language naturally evolves, so do meanings of words, I've given you a few examples. Without extensive research and knowledge, you'll get misconceptions even if you read the original KJV.

 

[OMC]

We need a new translation that is in plain English, which is accurate in line with the Greek and Hebrew.

The Interlinear Bible does that.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Well I use NKJV, the only bible in paper I have. And it's not about readablity, I've explained to you that language naturally evolves, so do meanings of words, I've given you a few examples. Without extensive research and knowledge, you'll get misconceptions even if you read the original KJV.

I used to have misconceptions in the KJV when I held to a KJV-English-Primacy (Core KJV) position.
In other words, I used to primarily read and study in the KJV English and the original languages were something that I only looked at on very rare occasions. That's all changed now. I disagree with my former position and I also disagree with the KJV-English-Only position, as well. I believe we should always do original language word studies in the KJV; Especially on the many uncommon words.

My position is best described as, "KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."
Both are correct and one does not correct the other.
Granted, there are additional nuances of meaning in the Hebrew and Greek with certain words that is not conveyed in the English of the KJV. This does not make the KJV deficient by any means.

As for the NKJV:

You should watch this video:

....

 

[Genez]

The Interlinear Bible does that.

That leaves it up to us to decide and is too generic.
It is too limited once you realize how the Greek tenses work.

Try reading the Williams translation https://www.sprawls.org/williams/

Or, Kenneth Wuest NT to get a better idea of what I speak please.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Well I use NKJV, the only bible in paper I have. And it's not about readablity, I've explained to you that language naturally evolves, so do meanings of words, I've given you a few examples. Without extensive research and knowledge, you'll get misconceptions even if you read the original KJV.

I can relate about language evolution. Some English words change meaning so those who haven't grown up during those transitions might have to resort to a dictionary.
Ie. That car looks cool.
That's hot. Hot Wheels. That's gay, and so forth.
Sometimes I still consult dictionaries, but the interesting thing about the KJV is that many unknown words define themselves in the text.

This is a Bible historian who explains some other issues with the nkjv.

 

[Lovette]

I can relate about language evolution. Some English words change meaning so those who haven't grown up during those transitions might have to resort to a dictionary.
Ie. That car looks cool.
That's hot. Hot Wheels. That's gay, and so forth.
Sometimes I still consult dictionaries, but the interesting thing about the KJV is that many unknown words define themselves in the text.

This is a Bible historian who explains some other issues with the nkjv.

Beware of idolatry. Human mind is an idol factory, anything, including the church organization, papacy, marriage, certain doctrines, and yes, the bible itself of certain translation, can be worshipped as an idol, and you'll go so far by identifying yourself with your idol. When your belief in your idol is being challenged or questioned, your inner defensive mechanism is triggered, and that's the case for the KJV only crowd. Yes, there're issues with nkjv, the same can be said on any translation, and that's just English translation. This is more about human cognitive bias.

Also, readability matters. IMO reading a modern translation and understanding the text is better than reading KJV and pretending to understand the text due to both the archaic language and your own misconception; learning something is better than nothing.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Beware of idolatry. Human mind is an idol factory, anything, including the church organization, papacy, marriage, certain doctrines, and yes, the bible itself of certain translation, can be worshipped as an idol, and you'll go so far by identifying yourself with your idol. When your belief in your idol is being challenged or questioned, your inner defensive mechanism is triggered, and that's the case for the KJV only crowd. Yes, there're issues with nkjv, the same can be said on any translation, and that's just English translation. This is more about human cognitive bias.

Also, readability matters. IMO reading a modern translation and understanding the text is better than reading KJV and pretending to understand the text due to both the archaic language and your own misconception; learning something is better than nothing.

Well, you would need some kind of standard to even tell you that, right? How do you know what idolatry is? By the Bible. Which Bible? Not all Bibles say the same thing, and many of them teach false doctrines.

In fact, most in the Critical Text/Modern Bible Movement camp create their own standard of what God's Word should say. That reading is in the Bible, and that reading is out. Taking God's Word too seriously by believing there is a settled standard somehow amounts to idolatry? Sounds to me like you just don't take the Bible seriously enough to want any kind of settled standard or authority.

Have you considered that Moses believed the words on those tablets of the ten commandments to be the precise words of God? Was Moses into idolatry when he received the two tablets of stone with God's words written on them?

No. So it's dumb to say that having a perfect standard of His words somehow equals idolatry.

On the contrary, if God did preserve His words in the KJV and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (which I believe He did), then why should it be considered idolatry for us to tell others to follow those words alone? Wouldn't that simply be taking God at His Word and encouraging others to do the same?


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Beware of idolatry. Human mind is an idol factory, anything, including the church organization, papacy, marriage, certain doctrines, and yes, the bible itself of certain translation, can be worshipped as an idol, and you'll go so far by identifying yourself with your idol. When your belief in your idol is being challenged or questioned, your inner defensive mechanism is triggered, and that's the case for the KJV only crowd. Yes, there're issues with nkjv, the same can be said on any translation, and that's just English translation. This is more about human cognitive bias.

Also, readability matters. IMO reading a modern translation and understanding the text is better than reading KJV and pretending to understand the text due to both the archaic language and your own misconception; learning something is better than nothing.

So, if all Bibles have errors, then who becomes the authority to decide what is an error and what is not an error in God's word? Is that not placing the authority in the hands of man or the individual instead of God? (Proverbs 30:5-6; Romans 3:4, KJV).

You do realize that we believe in the existence of a perfect, singular word of God because of Scripture, right? (Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:89, 160; Isaiah 34:16; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; John 10:35, KJV).

So, where does Scripture teach that we each have the authority to pick and choose which readings belong in God's word and which ones do not? Are there any verses that support the idea that you can simply chop up the Bible however you like in your own mind, deciding, "This reading belongs in the Bible, but that reading does not"? (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19, KJV).

What authority in Scripture do you have for claiming that it is idolatry to believe God has preserved His words and that His word is perfect? And if we find corrupted forms of His word, where does Scripture teach that it is wrong to rebuke such things?

And if every Bible contains errors, then by what perfect standard are you determining those errors in the first place?



.....

 

[Lovette]

Well, you would need some kind of standard to even tell you that, right? How do you know what idolatry is? By the Bible. Which Bible? Not all Bibles say the same thing, and many of them teach false doctrines.

In fact, most in the Critical Text/Modern Bible Movement camp create their own standard of what God's Word should say. That reading is in the Bible, and that reading is out. Taking God's Word too seriously by believing there is a settled standard somehow amounts to idolatry? Sounds to me like you just don't take the Bible seriously enough to want any kind of settled standard or authority.

Have you considered that Moses believed the words on those tablets of the ten commandments to be the precise words of God? Was Moses into idolatry when he received the two tablets of stone with God's words written on them?

No. So it's dumb to say that having a perfect standard of His words somehow equals idolatry.

On the contrary, if God did preserve His words in the KJV and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (which I believe He did), then why should it be considered idolatry for us to tell others to follow those words alone? Wouldn't that simply be taking God at His Word and encouraging others to do the same?


....

When you begin to make blatant statement that only the KJV is true, anything else is susceptible to modern corruption, then disparage all these modern versions, furthermore, denigrate all who don't read and quote KJV, whoever reads another translation is deceived, only you as the KJV only stalwart has access to the real word of God. This kind of attitude is idolatry.

The bottom line is, what the bible states, regardless of version, is one thing; what you read into it and glean from it is quite another. As a matter of fact, God has two revelations, one is his special revelation through his words, the other is his GENERAL revelation through all his creations. You can't truly understand one without the other. Case in point, if you don't know anything about the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD, you'll be totally clueless about the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Lovette]

So, if all Bibles have errors, then who becomes the authority to decide what is an error and what is not an error in God's word? Is that not placing the authority in the hands of man or the individual instead of God? (Proverbs 30:5-6; Romans 3:4, KJV).

You do realize that we believe in the existence of a perfect, singular word of God because of Scripture, right? (Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:89, 160; Isaiah 34:16; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; John 10:35, KJV).

So, where does Scripture teach that we each have the authority to pick and choose which readings belong in God's word and which ones do not? Are there any verses that support the idea that you can simply chop up the Bible however you like in your own mind, deciding, "This reading belongs in the Bible, but that reading does not"? (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19, KJV).

What authority in Scripture do you have for claiming that it is idolatry to believe God has preserved His words and that His word is perfect? And if we find corrupted forms of His word, where does Scripture teach that it is wrong to rebuke such things?

And if every Bible contains errors, then by what perfect standard are you determining those errors in the first place?



.....

Only the original text in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are infallible, no translation is infallible, do you even understand the difference? Any translation including KJV is affected by the translators' own ideas, and language naturally evolves, clinging to KJV doesn't make you any superior. If you think it does, then that's idolatry.

 

[Qt]

You obviously did not bother to read the entire entry at LSJ.

View attachment 297707

I zoomed in on the entry for you to see here:

View attachment 297708

Here it is in the KJV:

View attachment 297709

Don't believe the screenshots?
Just click on the links below to check them out!

Sources:

https://lsj.gr/wiki/κατέχω

1 Corinthians 15 KJV

Side Note: I also provided an older lexicon which you did not verify or check either.
Anyone can simply go back and see it for themselves and see that your research on basic facts cannot be trusted.


....

it means Keep,hold,not keep in remembrance. You can keep a memory. Or keep something. That is what all lexicons show. That is what the research I posted shows. You said, “QT, the Greek word itself already conveys the idea of keeping something in memory! The KJV translators were not adding some foreign meaning to the text when they translated κατέχετε (katechete) as "keep in memory" (1 Corinthians 15:2). This is an established meaning of the Greek verb κατέχω (katechō“.

Keep in memory is not an established meaning. It means keep, hold. Not keep in memory . You are reading and posting from lexicons but do not understand what you read.

 

[OMC]

That leaves it up to us to decide and is too generic.
It is too limited once you realize how the Greek tenses work.

Try reading the Williams translation https://www.sprawls.org/williams/

Or, Kenneth Wuest NT to get a better idea of what I speak please.

I agree an interlinear has limits.
It shows you the words, but it doesn't automatically teach you how Greek or Hebrew grammar works.
At the same time, Williams and Wuest are making interpretive decisions too.
The interlinear lets you see what the text actually says, while expanded translations help explain how the translators think the grammar functions.
Both can be useful, but neither should replace examining the text itself.

 

[Qt]

Anyone can simply go back and see it for themselves and see that your research on basic facts cannot be trusted.

My research on basic facts can't be trusted?

I posted how the word was used throughout the KJV in the NT by displaying the verses. Which is basically how a Lexicon is created,

And then I posted how the word was used in the LXX by displaying the verses.

You make a lot of subjective comments about posts and posters that have no basis and in no wise address any of the facts given.

Here are links to the posted evidence. Maybe this time you will look at the evidence unbiasedly.

https://christianchat.com/threads/i...cessary-for-kjv-believers.223435/post-5849123

Post in thread 'Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?'

Yesterday at 5:07 AM

Now I know that I cannot take this conversation seriously anymore. You just by-passed all the lexical information I provided and provided your own source that does not have it

Here are some of the instances that the translators used κατέχω when translating the Old Testament into Greek in the LXX. The translation of the LXX below is the ABP.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham looking up with his eyes, saw. And behold, [2 ram 1 one] being held in a plant of a thicket by the horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and he offered it for a whole offering instead of Isaac his son.
Gen...

• Qt

 

[Qt]

Anyone can simply go back and see it for themselves and see that your research on basic facts cannot be trusted.

Here is something else to help you. Which brings out another error in the KJV in respect to the present tense of σῴζεσθε.

1Cor 15:2 δι' By
οὗ Which
καὶ Also
σῴζεσθε You all Are Being Saved, (being saved not saved. the verb is in the present tense, so it is ongoing action not a state of being.)
τίνι What
λόγῳ Word
εὐηγγελισάμην I Announced
ὑμῖν To You
εἰ If
κατέχετε ἐκτὸς You all Hold Fast, ( It says we are to hold fast that which was announced to us is the common understanding, not keep in memory. To hold fast to something is so much more than just keeping it in memory. However I would argue that the holding fast is to the standing in the Gospel that verse one speaks of. Because if we do not then our believing is in vain. )
εἰ μὴ Unless
εἰκῇ In Vain
ἐπιστεύσατε You all Believed.

 

[OMC]

Does a present-tense verb always require an English present-progressive translation ("are being saved"), or can it describe a present state resulting from an ongoing reality?
I agree that σῴζεσθε is present tense and can naturally be rendered: "you are being saved."
In fact, many modern translations do exactly that.

But the real issue is whether Paul's emphasis is on a continuous saving process or on the believers' present participation in salvation through the gospel they received and in which they stand (vv. 1-2).

With κατέχετε, I think you've identified the key question.
The debate isn't whether "keep in memory" is a lexically possible meaning.
As you've argued before, it is.
The question is whether Paul's point here is merely remembering the message or continuing to hold firmly to it.

Looking at the flow of the passage, I'd be inclined to ask: What are they holding fast to?
Verse 1 says: "the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand."
That certainly sounds broader than mere mental recollection.
So if I were evaluating the passage, I'd focus less on defending a particular translation and more on Paul's argument:
They received the gospel.
They stand in the gospel.
Through that gospel they are being saved.
They must continue holding fast to what was preached.
The interesting question then becomes: What does Paul mean by "unless ye have believed in vain"?
Because that seems to be the hinge on which the entire discussion turns.

 

[Qt]

Does a present-tense verb always require an English present-progressive translation ("are being saved"), or can it describe a present state resulting from an ongoing reality?

It is an ongoing action that is contingent if we are holding fast. The present state does not negate the ongoing action.

There are only 14 occurrences in the NT with verbs parsed the same way that I can see.

I do not have time presently to go through them thoroughly. But scratching the surface I do not see where we can ignore the process of the present action happening. Here are the verses:
Matthew 23:28
2 Corinthians 6:12
Ephesians 2:22
Philippians 2:15
Colossians 2:20
1 Corinthians 6:7
1 Corinthians 15:2
Galatians 5:4
Galatians 5:18
1 Peter 2:5
1 Peter 4:14
Mark 5:39
Mark 12:24
Mark 12:27

I agree that σῴζεσθε is present tense and can naturally be rendered: "you are being saved."
In fact, many modern translations do exactly that.

There are older ones also, YLT for one.

1Cor 15:2 through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain,


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As I said I am pressed for time. However I intend to give your post the attention it deserves when I am a bit more freed up.

May the Lord our God continue to bless us in all His Way, Jesus Christ.

 

[OMC]

It is an ongoing action that is contingent if we are holding fast. The present state does not negate the ongoing action.

There are only 14 occurrences in the NT with verbs parsed the same way that I can see.

I do not have time presently to go through them thoroughly. But scratching the surface I do not see where we can ignore the process of the present action happening. Here are the verses:
Matthew 23:28
2 Corinthians 6:12
Ephesians 2:22
Philippians 2:15
Colossians 2:20
1 Corinthians 6:7
1 Corinthians 15:2
Galatians 5:4
Galatians 5:18
1 Peter 2:5
1 Peter 4:14
Mark 5:39
Mark 12:24
Mark 12:27

I think that's a fair point, and it's actually a stronger argument than simply appealing to the tense by itself.

Let me ask a question, though: Does the fact that salvation is described as an ongoing process mean there is no completed aspect to salvation?
Because Paul seems comfortable speaking of salvation in multiple ways.
We have been saved (Eph. 2:8),
we are being saved (1 Cor. 15:2), and
we shall be saved (Rom. 5:9-10).

So I don't disagree that σῴζεσθε emphasizes an ongoing reality.
In fact, the condition Paul attaches: "if ye keep in memory" / "if you hold fast"
shows he's not treating salvation as something divorced from perseverance.

What I find interesting is that Paul doesn't merely say: "you are being saved."
He says: "you are being saved, if you hold fast..."

That raises the question: Is Paul describing salvation as a single moment, or as something believers continue to participate in through faith?
I think the grammar pushes us toward the latter.

But then I'd ask, What is it they are holding fast to?
The answer seems to be the gospel Paul preached, the same gospel they received and in which they stand (1 Cor. 15:1).

So you're right not to ignore the ongoing force of the present tense.
The real discussion is whether Paul is describing an ongoing process of salvation, ongoing perseverance in the faith, or both.
The context seems to point to both working together.