Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Dino246]

Where the ESV Changes or Weakens Doctrine​

In every one of these, all you have done is show that there are differences between the ESV and the KJV. You have not demonstrated that the ESV is weaker, because you have not established that the KJV translation is the best English for the extant Greek. That is a biased approach. Instead, you need to find the best translation of the Greek and compare both to that.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In every one of these, all you have done is show that there are differences between the ESV and the KJV. You have not demonstrated that the ESV is weaker, because you have not established that the KJV translation is the best English for the extant Greek. That is a biased approach. Instead, you need to find the best translation of the Greek and compare both to that.

Not really. I can see the patterns of changes for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. 25 Catholic ideas can be found in Modern Bibles and these have grown in number since the Westcott and Hort Revised Version in 1881. I documented this carefully. Then you have the changing of the perspective on evil. You have fear changed to reverence, etc. You have the deity of Jesus Christ being watered down in 20 some places in Scripture. You got about 18 places where either the certainty, purity, or the preservation of God's words is watered downed or attacked (Which just so happens to fit the very belief the critical text believer favors because they see all bibles as having errors). Your Modern Bibles tell us that women must marry their rapist. Modern Bibles remove the command that tells us that we are not to fellowship with those who think gain is godliness. Fornication is either completely removed or watered down in Modern Bibles and it is a very specific sin. Modern Bibles teach that you should wish that Judaizers should hack of their man parts. It doesn't take much discernment that these changes are for the worse and not for the better. It's a pattern or theme of bad changes. I could keep going but I do not think it would help you to see the pattern or theme because you are simply unwilling to see it. Maybe if five million dollars was at stake here, you might see it. I mean, you can even ask various AI's from an unbiased perspective if my list has any merit on some of them and ask it to give you the definitions of the older lexicons to make sure it is not going off the changed modern lexicons (Which were influenced by German Rationalists).


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

For me, God's words are as treasure. So to say that His words contain errors is fundamental flaw in His promisees and speaks to where our real treasure is at. We are to set our affections on things above. The words of God we have here perfectly is also forever settled in heaven, as well. I believe these perfect words are the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that underlies the KJV. These are the inspired words of God that are without error that I trust. The KJV is a providential and accurate translation. But the underlying languages of the KJV are the actual perfect and inspired words of God.



.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In every one of these, all you have done is show that there are differences between the ESV and the KJV. You have not demonstrated that the ESV is weaker, because you have not established that the KJV translation is the best English for the extant Greek. That is a biased approach. Instead, you need to find the best translation of the Greek and compare both to that.

Forgot to add that there are also Calvinist ideas in Modern Bibles, too. New Testament Commands are changed. A crucial fact in Acts 15 is changed which helps us to understand the apostle Paul when he refers to Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4, etcetera.



....

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, it is both working together, but ultimately God is the One who deserves the glory for those good works being worked through the believer. Why? Why did the 24 elders cast down their crowns before Jesus?

Why does God keep on putting the crowns back on the 24 elders, so they can keep on casting them down? Maybe God keeps on insisting on accrediting to them some of the glory for their good deeds.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

First, my warmest thanks for doing so much work on my behalf. When I asked for “a few” passages from the ESV, I was thinking of something like three or four. But you have produced no fewer than twenty-eight, counting the two halves of #3 separately! I was not only astounded to see the length of your list, but also filled with regret for not having explained more clearly what I was asking for. My apologies for that omission.

Also, I can assure you that my first question was not intended as a “gotcha.” I was simply asking, in all innocence, for a clarification. “Modern” is, after all, a pretty vague term that can mean almost anything, depending on the context. You have now given me a straight, unambiguous answer, namely anything later than 1881, that takes Westcott & Hort as the best edition of the GNT.

It will take me at least a full day to examine all your answers in detail, but for the time being here goes my reply to just one of them, your #5, “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” Everything I’ve seen on this question until now suggests that “sexual immorality” is the closer of the two to porneia, precisely because it covers a wider range of behaviors than “fornication” alone.

Thanks again, and I’ll get back to you again as soon as I can manage it.

People are confused about biblical marriage (Scriptural Jewish marriage) and how that actually works according to Scripture. In order for your belief to be true, you would need to find an Ancient Greek witness before Christ, or somewhere in between the 1st and 5th centuries from Christians who used πορνεία (porneia), in such a way that clearly shows several things:

#1. The context clearly establishes that this is married couple in the sense that they had sex prior (i.e., the consummated the marriage). Just a reference to a wife in general is not good enough because according to the Bible, a woman can be called a wife legally without having consummated the marriage yet.​

​

#2. A clear example of man or woman who are married (in the consummated sense and not just the legal sense) with one of them cheating on the other and the word πορνεία (porneia) is used to describe the offending party who is married in the sense of the fact that they consummated the marriage clearly beforehand in the context.​

You find an example like that in the Greek, and then you can clearly say 100% that πορνεία (porneia) can refer to sexual immorality in general to include adultery, as well. The Bible also lists fornication and adultery separate and yet next to each other, as well. Why would it do that if they are saying the same exact thing?

Check out my PDF writeup on the four steps of Jewish marriage in the Bible here:

The Four Biblical Steps of Jewish Marriage



.....

 

[John0A]

Hi

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

First, my warmest thanks for doing so much work on my behalf. When I asked for “a few” passages from the ESV, I was thinking of something like three or four. But you have produced no fewer than twenty-eight, counting the two halves of #3 separately! I was not only astounded to see the length of your list, but also filled with regret for not having explained more clearly what I was asking for. My apologies for that omission.

Also, I can assure you that my first question was not intended as a “gotcha.” I was simply asking, in all innocence, for a clarification. “Modern” is, after all, a pretty vague term that can mean almost anything, depending on the context. You have now given me a straight, unambiguous answer, namely anything later than 1881, that takes Westcott & Hort as the best edition of the GNT.

It will take me at least a full day to examine all your answers in detail, but for the time being here goes my reply to just one of them, your #5, “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” Everything I’ve seen on this question until now suggests that “sexual immorality” is the closer of the two to porneia, precisely because it covers a wider range of behaviors than “fornication” alone.

Thanks again, and I’ll get back to you again as soon as I can manage it.

A lexicon alone is not going to settle this, although you can certainly look at them all if you like. Just because a lexicon states it means sexual immorality in general does not make that lexicon correct. Dictionaries and lexicons can sometimes contain errors. They are not infallible. The best approach is to get the various different AI's to try and find early attested usage that supports your definition. However, see my criteria on that in my post here. The contextual usage that comes from the Bible and ancient Greek usage will settle the meaning clearly here. Also, you would have to have a logical explanation why Scripture lists πορνεία (porneia) and μοιχεία (moicheia) next to each other. It would have to make sense either according to Scripture and or ancient Greek usage.



.....

 

[PaulThomson]

One particularly clear example comes from a Middle English version of the Rule of St. Benedict, dated roughly 1350–1420. In a section specifically explaining how “silence” is to be observed, it says:

“Sain benet spekis in þis sentence of silence, how ȝe sal it halde... for þi sal ȝe seldin speke...”
That is essentially:

“Saint Benedict speaks in this section concerning silence, how you shall keep it... therefore you shall seldom speak.”
The important point is that it says “seldom speak,” not “never speak.” In fact, the same passage goes on to say that the mistress ought to speak in order to teach her disciples wisdom. So the “silence” being described clearly allows appropriate speech while emphasizing restraint and moderation.

Source:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/AHA2736/1:1?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

I honestly do not see how those passages use silence to mean calm or taciturn speaking. Those commanded to keep silence are forbidden to speak under threat of correction for doing so.

Of silence eftir cumplin spekis sain Benet in þis sentence, and bidis þat ye sal do yu payne at halde silence eftir cumplin. yef þe cuuent etis tuise, Als tite as tay rise fra þe supere, þan sal þai site wid ordir in þe cloistir. when colaciun ringis, þan salle alle asembil in þe chapitir. an [folio 26a] sal rede þe lescun of þe halizis, ouþir of haly writ, for to comforth þaim þat it heris. In þat tyme sal ye noht rede þe boke of þe kingis, for nan vnait sal be herde þat tyme for þa þat ere of febil þoht; In oþir tyme mai it be red. yef it be fasting day, þai sal haue gode entirual, And when colaciun ringis, Alle þat þe belle heris ga til to [to, for te (= þe)? or redundant (= til)?] colaciun; And siþin eftir at cumplin; siþin be nan sua hardy to speke. yef ani es tan wid-al, þat hauis brokin silence eftir cumplin, smerte correccion salle man take of hir. yef gestis cume, and tabbesse cumandis at description PAGE 30 speke, þat tare be nane vtrage.

“Concerning silence after Compline, Saint Benedict speaks in this passage and commands that you make every effort to keep silence after Compline. If the community eats twice a day, then, as soon as they rise from supper, they shall sit in order in the cloister.

When the bell rings for the reading, everyone shall assemble in the chapter house. Then a reading from the lives of the saints, or from Holy Scripture, shall be read, to comfort those who hear it.

At that time you shall not read the Book of Kings, because nothing unsuitable should be heard then by those who are weak in understanding. At another time it may be read.

If it is a fasting day, they shall have a good interval [between meals]. When the bell rings for collation, everyone who hears the bell shall go to collation, and afterwards to Compline. After that, no one shall be so bold as to speak.

If anyone is caught breaking silence after Compline, she shall receive severe correction from her. If guests arrive and the abbess commands


In þis sentence cumandis sain benet þat te lescun sal noht faile at mete. O þis maner sal þis be stabilist, þat nan ta þe boke at [folio 24a] rede bot sho þat sal rede al þe wuke; sho sal beginne o-po þe sunday. sho sal cum by-fore þauter o þe sunday efter þe messe and say þris þis verse, and al þe cuuent eftir: "Domine, labia mea aperies," And recaiue þe benediccion, þat gete hir fra pride. Þai sal halde silence at te borde, þat na uoice be herde bot of hir þat redis. Þa þat serue sal ta yeme til þam þat etes, þat tay haue na defaute of þat tay sal haue, wharfore þai make na noise. Yef [The subject (ani, or the like) is omitted.] wil aske ani thing, sho salle make sinis and noght speke. Nane sal speke of na demande in þe lescun, whar-of noise may rise.

“In this passage Saint Benedict commands that the reading shall not be omitted at mealtime. It shall be arranged in this way: no one shall take the book to read except the woman who is to read for the whole week. She shall begin on Sunday.

After Mass on Sunday, she shall come before the altar and say this verse three times, with the whole community repeating it each time:

Domine, labia mea aperies
“Lord, open my lips.”

Then she shall receive the blessing, which protects her from pride.

They shall keep silence at the table, so that no voice is heard except that of the reader. Those who serve shall attend to the diners, so that they lack none of what they need, and therefore have no reason to make a noise.

If anyone wishes to ask for something, she shall make signs and must not speak. No one shall speak or ask any question about the reading, since this might cause noise.”

 

[CS1]

Of course Jesus saves. The question is: Does God use His Word as the means by which the gospel is communicated, faith comes, and a person is born again? According to 1 Peter 1:23–25, the answer is plainly "yes."

And John 1 does not change that. Jesus being personally called “the Word” does not mean that every biblical reference to “the word of God” is another name for Jesus personally. In 1 Peter 1:25, Peter specifically says, “this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

You have not addressed 1 Peter 1:23–25, which explicitly says we are “born again… by the word of God,” and then identifies this with “the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” You also have not addressed Romans 10:17, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” or Christ’s statement that “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Peter likewise said that Jesus has “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68).

Still crickets from you on these points in Scripture and you just keep inserting your own man-made filled thoughts on the matter.


....

You are not being honest I did ask you if Jesus saves.

I asked do you believe he is the Only was salvation. Meaning Jesus the only salvation and way to the Father.

 

[PaulThomson]

There is another very interesting example from Tree & Fruits of the Holy Ghost (c.1460):

“gentil communicacioun medled with sad silens”
This can be translated approximately as:

“gentle communication/conversation mingled with sober or restrained silence.”
This example is particularly relevant because communication and silence are explicitly joined together in the same expression. That would be difficult to explain if “silence” necessarily meant the complete absence of speech.

This citation is listed directly in the MED entry for “silence”:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED40329

I cannot access the literature itself, but “gentle communication/conversation mingled with sober or restrained silence.” seems to me to mean, “gentle communication where appropriate and otherwise sober self-restrained silence (equanimous disposition while not speaking).”

So, I don’t see this as supporting silence sometimes equal gentle communication. That would be like arguing that "wine mixed with gall’ means that gall can sometimes be wine. Or "a box of apples mixed with pears” means that pears can sometimes be apples.

 

[CS1]

No. Those who deny Jesus is God are not going to make it. Jesus said if you do not believe I am he, you will die in your sins. Jesus also said before Abraham was... "I am." This was a clear reference to Exodus 3 when God said that He is the "I AM", which is the sacred name of God given to the Israelites forever.

Side Note:

So This means that by your belief, heretics such as JWs, and others like them who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are saved.
If so, you an extreme liberal. You need to start in deeply studying your Bible sometime. If you did, you would not say the Trinity is a mystery. You wouldn't say that a person can deny the Trinity and be saved. You cannot worship a false god and be saved.


....

Are able to read correctly? I did not say that you are very much dishonest. You are being a buffoon by this statement you made that I have never said. "So This means that by your belief, heretics such as JWs, and others like them who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are saved."
However, if a person who is in a cult like JW repents and places their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and believes He is God YES! they can be saved. I am not extreme liberal. You have issues. FYI thr word of God states the Eternal God head is a mystery

1tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Eternal is a word that our finite minds can’t fully comprehend. Yet the word eternal describes one of the attributes of our heavenly Father. And God’s eternal nature is one of the many mysteries that the Bible doesn’t define but just states. For example, we read in (Psalm 90:2): “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

BUT you know all?

Please I am done with you. You lie and make false statements.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Are able to read correctly? I did not say that you are very much dishonest. You are being a buffoon by this statement you made that I have never said. "So This means that by your belief, heretics such as JWs, and others like them who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are saved."
However, if a person who is in a cult like JW repents and places their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and believes He is God YES! they can be saved. I am not extreme liberal. You have issues. FYI thr word of God states the Eternal God head is a mystery

1tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Eternal is a word that our finite minds can’t fully comprehend. Yet the word eternal describes one of the attributes of our heavenly Father. And God’s eternal nature is one of the many mysteries that the Bible doesn’t define but just states. For example, we read in (Psalm 90:2): “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

BUT you know all?

Please I am done with you. You lie and make false statements.

You did not address any of the verses I put forth to you, and now you want me to engage with you on new verses? Okay, but that is not how these kinds of discussions are supposed to work. If I take the time to present specific Scriptures in support of my position, those passages need to be addressed before simply moving on to a different set of arguments.

Also, I generally do not engage in extended theological debates with people whose beliefs fall into categories such as liberal Christianity, agnosticism, atheism, Islam, Universalism, and similar positions. Seeing you do not regard the Trinity as a doctrine that deals with salvation, and thus, you are fine with others worshiping a false god not described in Scripture, I take this as a liberal position. There has to be enough common ground concerning the authority of Scripture for a productive biblical discussion to take place. So while I respect that some Christians may feel called to these types outreaches, that is not my calling or desire at this time in my life. I generally do not have patience for such extreme nonsense. Prayer in my opinion is the key to reaching these kinds of people.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I cannot access the literature itself, but “gentle communication/conversation mingled with sober or restrained silence.” seems to me to mean, “gentle communication where appropriate and otherwise sober self-restrained silence (equanimous disposition while not speaking).”

So, I don’t see this as supporting silence sometimes equal gentle communication. That would be like arguing that "wine mixed with gall’ means that gall can sometimes be wine. Or "a box of apples mixed with pears” means that pears can sometimes be apples.

So you think the Middle English dictionary is lying?
Do you need me to take a screen capture of the pages because you cannot access the links I gave?
Or are you referring to how need to see the original document that the MED site refers to in order to believe it?

While I do prefer original scans of older lexicons, this is because there is a movement set out to change what modern lexicons say.
There does not appear to be anything like that with the MED. There is no real motivation for anyone to do that.

The Critical Text Modern Bible Movement has motive to attack the TR and the KJV because it goes against their narrative that their text is better, when it clearly is not. Thus, they make up stories about Erasmus, and say Pseudo before the name of any writer who supports the Johannine Comma in some way (like Jerome, etc.). They say King James was a rainbow person and all kinds of other non-factual things. No doubt it is to keep their billion dollar modern Bible industrial complex running. But we are living in age where you can get information and sources unlike ever before. Thus, your original attack against the KJV using the word "silence" does not stand in light of the facts of history. Then again, I have seen this behavior with Critical Text advocates many times. Even when faced with the facts, they still cannot see the evidence you present to them. It's as if such evidence is invisible and you are speaking a foreign language to them. They just cannot see it. Most likely this is due to the fact that if a person repeats a lie long enough, they believe it to be fact. So new evidence or facts that challenge that belief is usually just dismissed or made as if it is impossible to ever reach or know in this life. Thus, they protect the belief they have always known or the belief they prefer to be true (despite the new evidence).


....

 

[Dino246]

Not really. I can see the patterns of changes for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. 25 Catholic ideas can be found in Modern Bibles and these have grown in number since the Westcott and Hort Revised Version in 1881. I documented this carefully. Then you have the changing of the perspective on evil. You have fear changed to reverence, etc. You have the deity of Jesus Christ being watered down in 20 some places in Scripture. You got about 18 places where either the certainty, purity, or the preservation of God's words is watered downed or attacked (Which just so happens to fit the very belief the critical text believer favors because they see all bibles as having errors). Your Modern Bibles tell us that women must marry their rapist. Modern Bibles remove the command that tells us that we are not to fellowship with those who think gain is godliness. Fornication is either completely removed or watered down in Modern Bibles and it is a very specific sin. Modern Bibles teach that you should wish that Judaizers should hack of their man parts. It doesn't take much discernment that these changes are for the worse and not for the better. It's a pattern or theme of bad changes. I could keep going but I do not think it would help you to see the pattern or theme because you are simply unwilling to see it. Maybe if five million dollars was at stake here, you might see it. I mean, you can even ask various AI's from an unbiased perspective if my list has any merit on some of them and ask it to give you the definitions of the older lexicons to make sure it is not going off the changed modern lexicons (Which were influenced by German Rationalists).

You are still assuming (with no evidence) that the KJV is correct. Unless you can show the original-language text and demonstrate that the KJV is the best rendering in every case, all you can demonstrate is difference.

By the way, the claim that newer translations "water down" the deity of Christ is absolute hogwash. In most cases, the KJV contains words that have been added, and there are cases where the KJV presents a lower view of Christ than newer translations.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You are still assuming (with no evidence) that the KJV is correct. Unless you can show the original-language text and demonstrate that the KJV is the best rendering in every case, all you can demonstrate is difference.

By the way, the claim that newer translations "water down" the deity of Christ is absolute hogwash. In most cases, the KJV contains words that have been added, and there are cases where the KJV presents a lower view of Christ than newer translations.

Saying that the TR / KJV words have been added is simply a faith statement that your Critical Text masters or scholars have told you that you just believe blindly by faith. You have not done any kind of independent investigation (nor would you ever do so in any kind of unbiased way) to actually see if there is any documented historical facts that prove this is the case. There are actually early TR readings that is backed up by early papyrus. There is also three archaeological evidences or artifacts that I discovered online recently that back up the Textus Receptus readings and yet they are not found in the Critical Text.



Ancient Artifacts Supporting the Received Text

Click on the image above or the Dropbox link.

Note: This is taken from my site: www.affectionsabove.com.

.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You are still assuming (with no evidence) that the KJV is correct. Unless you can show the original-language text and demonstrate that the KJV is the best rendering in every case, all you can demonstrate is difference.

By the way, the claim that newer translations "water down" the deity of Christ is absolute hogwash. In most cases, the KJV contains words that have been added, and there are cases where the KJV presents a lower view of Christ than newer translations.

In addition, I have catalogued 20 some verses in Modern Bibles that water down the deity of Jesus Christ. This is simply a fact. It is on my 77 changed doctrines PDF that was on my site, but I took it down because I am re-working that writeup to align it with the original languages and sourcing it with the older lexicons that any person can verify for themselves. Uncommon or archaic KJV words of note will also be sourced when applicable or important. Textual differences (or manuscript differences) are also sourced, as well (So a person can examine the Hebrew and Greek from the two different major Bible lines). While I could add a lot more to my 77 changed doctrines list, I do have other projects that I want to do for the Lord.


....

 

[Dino246]

Saying that the TR / KJV words have been added is simply a faith statement that your Critical Text masters or scholars have told you that you just believe blindly by faith.

Saying that the modern translations are corrupt is simply a faith statement that your KJV-o masters have told you that you just believe blindly by faith.

You have not done any kind of independent investigation
....

You don't know jack about me or what I have investigated.

 

[Dino246]

In addition, I have catalogued 20 some verses in Modern Bibles that water down the deity of Jesus Christ. This is simply a fact.
....

Yawn.

I strongly suspect you have never looked critically at the KJV to find the verses there that "water down" the deity of Christ when compared with the modern versions. Yours is a one-way lens.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Saying that the modern translations are corrupt is simply a faith statement that your KJV-o masters have told you that you just believe blindly by faith.

There is no such thing because I base all my decisions on independent research myself.
The more I dig, the more I find that backs up the Received Text.

You don't know jack about me or what I have investigated.

Its not about what you have investigated in the past. Its your present attitude now in doing so. In other words, I am more concerned with your approach of what you would investigate from this point forward. If you are a real truth seeker, then you should have no fear if your Critical Text does not really stand up to scrutiny in light of the Traditional Text.


....