Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[GRACE_ambassador]

I also do not regard any translation as inspired, either. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek was inspired.

So, since we No Longer have the 'Originals', How Then Is God's "Preserved" Word Of Truth (AV)

"Profitable" For anyone Today, if It Is Not "Inspired"?:

“All Scripture is Given By Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for doctrine, for ​

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

Did God MisSpeak???

 

[ATG]

There is a whole world that I did not know existed involving the KJV vs. Modern Bible issue. This also involves changes involving the original languages, as well. It's also very serious in my view.

What exactly are you talking about. Any tampering with the Scriptures, as we have them from God through all the ages, is for believing lies, not the truth,

Revelation 22:18-19 comes to mind, which again disproves OSAS.

The whole Bible disproves OSAS beginning with Gen 2:16-17. OSAS is the first lie recorded in the Bible:

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Trangression doesn't kill the soul to God, because we have our own unconditional immortality of god-like faith.

Side Note:

I prefer to get quotes of what folks actually say with a verified link. Second hand assessments (even my own) I would not expect people to trust like the original quoted source.

It's not a matter of proving anything, but only of reporting what is taught by some. While all OSAS Christians are the same in self-justification by their faith alone, there are verying degrees of delusion to support it.

What I would say, is that OSAS fits the description of Mystery Babylon, the Mother of harlots, so far as being the source of many false supporting arguments. The number of Scriptural corruptions it requires is impressive. I could list about a dozen different false teachings by memory.

So if an OSAS believer says something immoral, I like to get their exact quote and refer others to it. This way they cannot later backtrack what they said or say that no OSAS believer would ever state things like that, etcetera.

I have plenty of famous quotes recorded for my own reference. But it's no use to quote them, since they'll either ignore it, or just say we're misreading it.

When a person trusts in their eternal future by their faith alone, then by definition and practical conclusion, our faith alone is all that eternally matters, not our works.

The problem is that since all Scriptures are perfectly knit together into one word of God, when one Scripture is rejected/changed for personal faith and doctrine, then other Scriptures must also likewise be rejected/changed, in order to sustain that personal faith and doctrine. It's called the Domino effect of falling down the slippery slope of half-truths and lies.

With OSAS, I believe the most changes to Scripture must be made over the whole Bible, in order to sustain the first lie:

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Sons of God shall not surely die by transgression, because we have immortality as gods by faith alone. And like the pagan gods of old, we know good and evil, and do both at will.

I call it the OSAS beast: The mystery of many harlot doctrines to support the great OSAS mother of them all: Unconditional eternal life by faith alone, apart from our works.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

So, since we No Longer have the 'Originals', How Then Is God's "Preserved" Word Of Truth (AV)

"Profitable" For anyone Today, if It Is Not "Inspired"?:

“All Scripture is Given By Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for doctrine, for ​

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

Did God MisSpeak???

My position is best stated as, "KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek."

The KJV is an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
I see it as a translation without error and it is God's word today in 1600s English.
I believe we have the inspired Hebrew, and Aramaic today in the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text (Which underlies the OT of the KJV). Remember, Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18). This is Hebrew and not English because jots and tittles is referring specifically to the tiny marks that involved in the Hebrew letters.

I also believe the we have the inspired Greek with the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible. This would primarily be the Beza 1598 Greek, except for about 50 or so translatable differences. These 50 or so translatable differences are either found in previous Textus Receptus editions, the Complutensian Polyglot, and or other Greek witnesses. I am currently working on a spreadsheet showcasing those differences to help others to create a more proper TR (Textus Receptus Greek text). The goal is to show others that there is Greek support for the 50 or so translatable differences that are not in the Beza Greek and that we do have the proper Greek text today (That underlies the King James). Scrivener's TR Greek has some issues. Not to mention Scrivener was against the Johannine Comma and he worked on the committee of the Revised Version with Westcott and Hort.

Side Note:

There are some nuances of meaning in certain Hebrew, and Greek words that is not conveyed in the KJV. Grammatical features and sentence structure is also not always followed, either. This was the form that God originally inspired the Scriptures in. If every word had a point A to Point B word for word translation match with no additional layers of meaning given in the Hebrew, and Greek, then you could say that maybe it has carried that inspiration into the translation perfectly. But that's simply not the case.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

So, since we No Longer have the 'Originals', How Then Is God's "Preserved" Word Of Truth (AV)

"Profitable" For anyone Today, if It Is Not "Inspired"?:

“All Scripture is Given By Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for doctrine, for ​

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

Did God MisSpeak???

Acts 14:12 is a perfect example that illustrates the importance of the original languages that underlie the KJV.

A normal English reader would have no reason to automatically know that “Jupiter” and “Mercurius” in Acts 14:12 are actually the Roman equivalents of the Greek gods Zeus and Hermes. The underlying Beza 1598 Greek reads “Δία” (Dia), the accusative form of “Ζεύς” (Zeus), and “Ἑρμῆν” (Hermēn), the accusative form of “Ἑρμῆς” (Hermes).

This is not an error in the KJV. It is an example of what is commonly called “interpretatio Romana,” where a Greek deity is identified by his corresponding Roman name. Zeus was identified with Jupiter, while Hermes was identified with Mercury, or “Mercurius” in the KJV.

Therefore, when the KJV says that the people “called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius,” it is accurately communicating the identities of these pagan gods according to the Roman naming convention familiar to English readers of that period. But if we never look beneath the English translation to the Greek, we can easily miss the fact that Luke himself actually wrote “Δία,” Zeus, and “Ἑρμῆν,” Hermes.

This is exactly why I believe in both the accuracy of the KJV and the importance of studying its underlying original languages. Looking at the Greek does not correct the KJV here. It helps us understand more fully what the KJV is communicating.

To learn more about this point for clarity, check out my defense of the KJV and its underlying Greek in my PDF titled, "Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?" at www.affectionsabove.com.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What exactly are you talking about. Any tampering with the Scriptures, as we have them from God through all the ages, is for believing lies, not the truth,

I am talking about the Textus Receptus/KJV vs. the Critical Text/Modern Bibles.
I am for the Received Text and the King James Bible as the words of God for today.
Modern Bibles teach false doctrines and contain corruptions.

The whole Bible disproves OSAS beginning with Gen 2:16-17. OSAS is the first lie recorded in the Bible:

Yes, this is not news to me, brother. I have used that example many times online.
Yet, there is also another lie by the serpent (the devil) in the garden, too.
"Yea, hath God said...'?"
This is the Modern Critical Text Movement today.
They question God's word almost at every turn of the page.
Meaning, is they will ask themselves, is the longer ending in Mark in the Bible?
The Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7 cannot be true because the scholars say so and its not in the Modern translations.
Tons of words are either changed or deleted. These changes are for the worse and not for the better.

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Trangression doesn't kill the soul to God, because we have our own unconditional immortality of god-like faith.

Yes, I have shown OSAS believers this truth many times and they are still unable to see it or believe it.

It's not a matter of proving anything, but only of reporting what is taught by some. While all OSAS Christians are the same in self-justification by their faith alone, there are verying degrees of delusion to support it.

Yes, I know. I came up with my own classifications on this a long time ago to make sense of it a bit.

What I would say, is that OSAS fits the description of Mystery Babylon, the Mother of harlots, so far as being the source of many false supporting arguments. The number of Scriptural corruptions it requires is impressive. I could list about a dozen different false teachings by memory.

I see Mystery Babylon as the Catholic Church, but I am not into arguing or debating eschatology.

I have plenty of famous quotes recorded for my own reference. But it's no use to quote them, since they'll either ignore it, or just say we're misreading it.

My experience is that when I quote them as saying something really bad, like they can sin and still be saved, they usually admit it.
But it would not surprise me that they did that. The key is to pray for them in the hope that they might change despite the darkness and evil they justify. The key is to love their soul and truly care for them so it does not affect us in any negative way.

When a person trusts in their eternal future by their faith alone, then by definition and practical conclusion, our faith alone is all that eternally matters, not our works.

Well, I see faith alone without works as existing in our Initial Salvation.
Sanctification is the secondary aspect of Salvation and it does include the work of faith.
Some go the opposite extreme and ignore the first aspect of salvation by saying you have to be water baptized in order to be initially saved. However, being saved by faith alone without works must be true for our Initial Salvation. So there can be two wrong extremes in my view. Granted, OSAS is a lot more popular of course.

The problem is that since all Scriptures are perfectly knit together into one word of God, when one Scripture is rejected/changed for personal faith and doctrine, then other Scriptures must also likewise be rejected/changed, in order to sustain that personal faith and doctrine. It's called the Domino effect of falling down the slippery slope of half-truths and lies.

With OSAS, I believe the most changes to Scripture must be made over the whole Bible, in order to sustain the first lie:

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Yes, its bad.

Sons of God shall not surely die by transgression, because we have immortality as gods by faith alone. And like the pagan gods of old, we know good and evil, and do both at will.

I call it the OSAS beast: The mystery of many harlot doctrines to support the great OSAS mother of them all: Unconditional eternal life by faith alone, apart from our works.

Not sure about all that. But I do know they are wrong for turning God's grace into lasciviousness.



....

 

[PaulThomson]

That's a step in the right direction. But that does not mean a believer who rejects the Critical Text would be completely out of the woods. There are still many who love to be their own textual critics and create a Bible to their own imagining (picking this reading here and choosing that other one over there that has no general historic church agreement, etc.).



I also do not regard any translation as inspired, either. Only the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek was inspired. Any accurate copies of those originals would also be considered inspired, as well.

I see the KJV as a providential and accurate translation. However, that does not mean it conveys every Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek nuance, grammatical feature, etcetera.



Ah, so you are either Byzantine Priority, or you are for the Majority Text position. I do not see this as providential or influential today. There is no standard Greek text of all of the Majority Text today. What you have is a minority of the Majority. There is also no English translation that perfectly represents the Majority text either. So its still a movement that is under huge construction and not all Majority Text folk or Byzantine Priority believers agree. In other words, there is no real standard exactly or precisely. That would be more the TR/KJV position. That is a settled text. Why is that important? Well, you cannot add or take away from God's words in Revelation 22:18-19 if there is no settled word of God.


If I am understanding you correctly here, you appear to be incorrectly seeing KJV conspiracy theories where none exists.

The Middle English Dictionary (MED) was not a King James Only project, and it was not created to defend the KJV.

It is a major academic historical dictionary of the English language, produced principally at the University of Michigan. The idea goes back to 1919, when William A. Craigie, an editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, proposed separate historical dictionaries for different periods of English. The Middle English project began formally in 1925 under the involvement of the Modern Language Association, moved to the University of Michigan in 1930, and eventually became a massive university lexicographical project.

The principal editors were scholars such as Hans Kurath, Sherman M. Kuhn, and later Robert E. Lewis. The first printed fascicle appeared in 1952, and publication continued through 2001, eventually totaling about 15,000 pages, 54,000+ entries, and nearly 900,000 illustrative quotations.


Source:

https://findingaids.lib.umich.edu/catalog/umich-bhl-2011100

I have critiqued the texts the ME Dictionary uses to support their claim that silence sometimes means speaking calmly, and shown that those texts do not actually imply that meaning. You have not addressed my critiques of those specific ME texts, but have instead resorted to a series of logical fallacies:
Pigeon-holing me into some group or category you believe is discredited - "Ah, so you are either Byzantine Priority, or you are for the Majority Text position.” That’s not what I said.
Appeal to authority - "It is a major academic historical dictionary of the English language, produced principally at the University of Michigan.” Therefore, it should be believed?
Argumentum ad hominem - "There are still many who love to be their own textual critics and create a Bible to their own imagining (picking this reading here and choosing that other one over there that has no general historic church agreement, etc.)."
Poisoning the well - “… you appear to be incorrectly seeing KJV conspiracy theories”.

Could you instead, please, show me why my critiques of the texts the ME Dictionary uses for proving “silence" in ME could mean "speakng calmly" are incorrect. IMO the ME texts make perfect sense, if silence means without speaking.

It is not a conspiracy theory to suggest that churchmen and scholars from a highly patriarchal age and culture would feel it appropriate to translate hEsuchia as “quiet (calm/tranquil/ruly)" for men but as silent (without speaking) for women.

AI - "In the 17th Century, the attitude towards women speaking in public meetings was generally restrictive, as many believed women should not engage in public discourse. However, Quakerism was notable for allowing women to speak in meetings from its inception, which was considered revolutionary at the time and contributed to the movement for women's rights."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I have critiqued the texts the ME Dictionary uses to support their claim that silence sometimes means speaking calmly, and shown that those texts do not actually imply that meaning. You have not addressed my critiques of those specific ME texts, but have instead resorted to a series of logical fallacies:
Pigeon-holing me into some group or category you believe is discredited - "Ah, so you are either Byzantine Priority, or you are for the Majority Text position.” That’s not what I said.
Appeal to authority - "It is a major academic historical dictionary of the English language, produced principally at the University of Michigan.” Therefore, it should be believed?
Argumentum ad hominem - "There are still many who love to be their own textual critics and create a Bible to their own imagining (picking this reading here and choosing that other one over there that has no general historic church agreement, etc.)."
Poisoning the well - “… you appear to be incorrectly seeing KJV conspiracy theories”.

Could you instead, please, show me why my critiques of the texts the ME Dictionary uses for proving “silence" in ME could mean "speakng calmly" are incorrect. IMO the ME texts make perfect sense, if silence means without speaking.

It is not a conspiracy theory to suggest that churchmen and scholars from a highly patriarchal age and culture would feel it appropriate to translate hEsuchia as “quiet (calm/tranquil/ruly)" for men but as silent (without speaking) for women.

AI - "In the 17th Century, the attitude towards women speaking in public meetings was generally restrictive, as many believed women should not engage in public discourse. However, Quakerism was notable for allowing women to speak in meetings from its inception, which was considered revolutionary at the time and contributed to the movement for women's rights."

Thank you for clarifying your argument. I now see more precisely where our disagreement lies. However, you are combining two distinct definitions found in the Middle English Dictionary.

You are concentrating on definition 2(c):

“in silence, without speaking, silently; also, in a calm manner.”

You argue that the examples supporting “in a calm manner” are biblical translations of ἡσυχία and therefore might be circular. I understand that objection. Nevertheless, that does not address the MED’s separate definition 1(c):

“habitual moderation in speaking, taciturnity.”

That is the more important definition for my argument. I am not claiming that “talking silently” was a common expression meaning “talking calmly.” Nor do I need to produce that exact phrase. The relevant question is whether “silence” could describe habitual restraint, moderation, or fewness of speech rather than an absolute prohibition against speaking.

One of the MED’s examples comes from a Middle English version of the Rule of St. Benedict, dated approximately 1350–1420:

“Sain benet spekis in þis sentence of silence, how ȝe sal it halde… for þi sal ȝe seldin speke…”

In modern English:

“Saint Benedict speaks in this teaching concerning silence, how you shall observe it… therefore you shall seldom speak…”

This is not a Bible translation and does not depend upon translating the Greek word ἡσυχία. It is extra-biblical Middle English literature discussing the practice of “silence.” Most significantly, the author explains its observance by saying “you shall seldom speak,” not “you shall never speak.”

You could argue that the author meant complete silence with occasional exceptions, but even that would concede the central point: “silence” could describe a general discipline characterized by restrained and infrequent speech, even though some speaking still occurred. Consequently, the word did not always communicate absolute and uninterrupted muteness.

There is also evidence from the precise period in which the KJV was produced. Randle Cotgrave’s 1611 French-English dictionary defines “Taciturne” this way:

“Silent, secret, holding his peace, uttering little, using few or no words.”

Notice the alternatives: “uttering little” and “using few or no words.” Cotgrave could therefore call someone “silent” even when that person uttered a limited number of words. His adjoining entry defines “Taciturnité” with English words including “taciturnitie” and “silence.”

This is especially significant because Cotgrave’s dictionary was published in London in 1611—the same year as the KJV. It is not a biblical translation, a KJV defense, or a modern academic conjecture. It is contemporary lexicographical evidence showing that “silent” and “silence,” when associated with taciturnity, could concern fewness and restraint of words rather than invariably meaning no words whatsoever.

Cotgrave’s entry can be seen here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_dictionarie_of_the_French_and_English_tongues_-Cotgrave-_1611.djvu/897

The complete 1611 dictionary is available here:

Cotgrave's 1611 French/English Dictionary

Therefore, the argument is not circular:

1. The MED independently recognizes “silence” as “habitual moderation in speaking, taciturnity.”
2. An extra-biblical Middle English work explains the observance of “silence” by commanding people to “seldom speak.”
3. Cotgrave’s secular French-English dictionary of 1611 connects “silent” with “uttering little” and “using few or no words.”
4. The Greek noun ἡσυχία demonstrably means “quietness” in 2 Thessalonians 3:12: “that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.”
5. The related verb in 1 Thessalonians 4:11 likewise means to live quietly and orderly: “that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business.”
6. Therefore, the KJV’s “silence” in 1 Timothy 2:11–12 did not necessarily convey an absolute prohibition against every instance of speaking.

Your request for Middle English examples of people “talking silently” imposes an unnecessarily narrow test. A historical word can describe a person’s general manner or habitual conduct without being used as an adverb directly modifying “talking.” Even today, we might call someone “a silent man” although he speaks when necessary. That does not mean he literally never talks; it means he is habitually reserved in speech.



….

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I have critiqued the texts the ME Dictionary uses to support their claim that silence sometimes means speaking calmly, and shown that those texts do not actually imply that meaning. You have not addressed my critiques of those specific ME texts, but have instead resorted to a series of logical fallacies:
Pigeon-holing me into some group or category you believe is discredited - "Ah, so you are either Byzantine Priority, or you are for the Majority Text position.” That’s not what I said.
Appeal to authority - "It is a major academic historical dictionary of the English language, produced principally at the University of Michigan.” Therefore, it should be believed?
Argumentum ad hominem - "There are still many who love to be their own textual critics and create a Bible to their own imagining (picking this reading here and choosing that other one over there that has no general historic church agreement, etc.)."
Poisoning the well - “… you appear to be incorrectly seeing KJV conspiracy theories”.

Could you instead, please, show me why my critiques of the texts the ME Dictionary uses for proving “silence" in ME could mean "speakng calmly" are incorrect. IMO the ME texts make perfect sense, if silence means without speaking.

It is not a conspiracy theory to suggest that churchmen and scholars from a highly patriarchal age and culture would feel it appropriate to translate hEsuchia as “quiet (calm/tranquil/ruly)" for men but as silent (without speaking) for women.

AI - "In the 17th Century, the attitude towards women speaking in public meetings was generally restrictive, as many believed women should not engage in public discourse. However, Quakerism was notable for allowing women to speak in meetings from its inception, which was considered revolutionary at the time and contributed to the movement for women's rights."

Concerning my reference to “KJV conspiracy theories,” that statement did not arise out of nowhere, nor was it merely an attempt to poison the well. It was a response to your own previous explanation.

You previously suggested that Bible translators may have misapplied ἡσυχία because “they wanted their women to be silent.” You also suggested that the compilers of the Middle English Dictionary may have mistakenly broadened the historical meaning of “silence” because they relied upon biblical translations that, in your view, had mistranslated ἡσυχία. You have now similarly suggested that churchmen and scholars from a “highly patriarchal age and culture” may have translated ἡσυχία as “quiet” for men but as “silence” for women.

That naturally created the impression that you were proposing a theory of inherited ideological bias involving both Bible translation and later lexicography.

However, there is an important chronological distinction that must be made. The MED itself was compiled in the twentieth century, but it documents Middle English usage from approximately 1100 to 1500. Its definitions are based upon quotations taken from writings belonging to that historical period.

The KJV, published in 1611, is Early Modern English and falls outside the MED’s stated historical period. Therefore, the MED did not use the KJV as evidence for how “silence” was used in Middle English. Your statement that the MED’s proof came from “the KJV and other ME Bibles” incorrectly places the KJV among the Middle English Bibles.

Insofar as a complete Middle English Bible containing 1 Timothy is concerned, the Wycliffite Bible is the principal qualifying translation. Therefore, your circularity objection would have to be formulated much more narrowly: you would need to argue that the MED misunderstood the evidence supplied by the Wycliffite Bible—not that it derived its Middle English definition from the KJV.

More importantly, that narrower objection still does not answer the MED’s extra-biblical evidence that I have already shown.



….

 

[BartholomewB]

Please know that if you write any kind of future refutation, it is not something I probably will respond to directly here. If you do so, I would simply use that sharpen my own write-up maybe. In other aw refute every clear bad doctrine in Modern Bibles I would not have a life. I do have other projects and things I want to do for the Lord Jesus. My 77 changed doctrines list will have links to the older lexicons for the translation differences, and it will provide links to see the textual differences. It would be up to the person or individual to see the pattern is generally bad or not. Personally, I think a person has serious issues on a mental level if they deny the bad pattern of corrupted doctrines in Modern Bibles because they are simply denying the obvious truth. It's as if they are saying red is blue or rain is not wet. That's how dumb this is from my perspective. To not recognize the pattern I gave as not being bad is like one who cannot see the forest for the trees. Sorry, that is just how I feel about it. Can you maybe enlighten me why you don't see the bad pattern of changed doctrines? It really is a mystery to me why you cannot see it. It's so obvious. I mean, good detectives piece together a pattern of evidence to solve the crime. If they failed to recognize any kind of pattern, they would not be good investigators or detectives. Can you maybe look at the list again from an unbiased way with no Critical Text mindset maybe?


....

I'm sorry to hear your bad news. Translation in general, and Bible translation in particular, is a subject that interests me greatly.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm sorry to hear your bad news. Translation in general, and Bible translation in particular, is a subject that interests me greatly.

Believing God’s word by faith and defending it against corruptions is a subject that interests me greatly, although I am not out to endlessly convince the close-minded doubters or the “Yea, hath God said?” society. Why? Because they are never going to see it, no matter what evidence you show them.

Even now, I have shown you the pattern of changes for the worse in Modern Bibles on a massive scale, and it should have naturally clicked in your brain and made you say to yourself, “Yeah, you’re right, brother. That is a bad pattern of changes.”

But no. Instead, you gave the impression that you needed to fix or dismantle the evidence rather than seriously considering that the weight of the testimony could actually be true.

You are also not considering that false or bad English translations have led other believers astray into believing false things taught or implied in those Modern Bibles, such as Arianism, or even making it appear in certain passages as though Jesus sinned, etcetera.

You have also not considered that if God desires us to believe His words, and if He warns us not to add to or take away from those words, then there should be a single set of His words, a standard.

Granted, I am speaking primarily of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV here. At the same time, I have no desire to change even the King James Bible itself. My goal in life is simply to believe God’s word, obey it, and refuse to change it based on the latest fad in modern scholarship.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

So, since we No Longer have the 'Originals', How Then Is God's "Preserved" Word Of Truth (AV)

"Profitable" For anyone Today, if It Is Not "Inspired"?:

“All Scripture is Given By Inspiration of God, and is Profitable for doctrine, for ​

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16 AV)​

Did God MisSpeak???

I also want to thank you for your post. It made me reflect more on my position and in light of what Scripture says.

After meditating on it, I believe I may have come to a slightly more nuanced understanding here.

So the way I understand "inspiration" is that it is "God-breathed," and it is not a modern invention. Taking into account the writings of Ancient Greek and two early church writers proves this.

See my short PDF writeup on that here:

Early Witness for God Breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16​

The English word "given" is not in the Greek in 2 Timothy 3:16, but it is implied by the meaning of the Greek word θεόπνευστος in Beza's 1598 TR as "God-breathed." The idea behind this is that Scripture was given once under the inspiration of the breathing of God. So any copies of Scripture in Greek would carry that inspiration, and it is not that each copy would go through some kind of brand-new "inspiration" again, or a "re-inspiration." Granted, Jeremiah is an exception, of course. Many like words (new words) were added to the copy by Jeremiah. So, if we have an identical copy of the originals in Greek, it is inspired in the sense that it is carrying that inspiration, like how a horse carriage may carry humans by the horse pulling it. It's not that the copy is re-inspired or that it is a fresh, brand-new form of inspiration by God again. It is inspired, but inspired in that it carries the exact form of the original inspired words of God from the first time that God breathed out those inspired words.

I see the KJV as a providential translation without error, and it should be the Bible used in English-speaking churches. Nevertheless, the KJV does not convey every nuance of meaning that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek convey. There are also words in the KJV that sometimes express the Greek in a way that helps explain the context, and it is not always giving us the strictest wooden-literal meaning of the word in Greek, so that we can understand it better. So we can still understand the verse the same way, but we get there from two different paths. There is what the Greek literally says on a wooden level, and then there is the English of the KJV conveying that with slightly different wording in English sometimes. There are also words that are in italics in the KJV that are added to help explain the Hebrew and the Greek, too. Those words are not inspired. So my point is that the KJV may at times reflect the meaning in certain cases in a very literal way, and thus I would say that in such cases, the meaning of these words, could be called inspired (but only the meaning and not the form of the word). So the KJV would be inspired to a certain percentage "only in meaning" in certain places and not in its form. The KJV does not always follow the Greek structure or its grammar strictly. Again, these are not errors in the KJV. Translation can allow room for differences in English because English is different from Greek.

So the real and fully inspired words of God are the copies of Scripture we have today, which are the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that underlie the King James Bible. Therefore, I would say that the KJV is a partially inspired text only in meaning alone and only when it translates those Greek words literally. So one could say the KJV is inspired to a degree, but only in formal-equivalent translation-type places. The use or expression of English words that do not directly follow the strictest meaning of the Greek would not be inspired, in my view. However, those places in the KJV are still accurate and under God's divine providence to provide believers with an accurate Bible in English. The reason I say this is because when God gave the original Scriptures to His people, they were perfect the first time. The KJV had actually went through some refinement or word improvement after 1611 to match the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek better. This work or refinement was most likely finished in 1638 KJV, although printing errors still persisted. I believe the standardized KJV of today is without error as a 1600's english translation.




.....

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

I have no desire to change even the King James Bible itself. My goal in life is simply to believe God’s word, obey it, and refuse to change it based on the latest fad in modern scholarship.

Precious friend, agreed, since God Preserved His Precious AV Word Of Truth For

us, in our "own language", similar To This, eh?:​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the​

Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of​

every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together,​

and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."​

(Acts 2:4-6 AV)​

So, why, a simpleton may ask: "Why are some confounded today with the AV, and we really 'should
Go DEEPER' into/with the originals to get the true meanings of things"?

What about all the "language scholars" who Disagree with "each other" = Confusion Confounded???
[ Therefore, us simpletons { didn't Jesus Say: "...like little children..."? } will pass... ]

Especially with What Really Should Be "Simplicity In Christ", like this!:

And, Further Refuse To Change God's Teaching On His Grace / Eternal Salvation For His Body Of Christ!:

While all OSAS Christians are the same in self-justification by their faith alone, there are verying degrees of delusion to support it.

Correction: Some of us [ NON-lascivious ] Grace believers in "God's Eternal Salvation", teach
What God Taught us In His Precious AV Word Of Truth, About "Grace Through faith" Only

[ prayerfully / Carefully reviewing (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3-5; Titus 3:4-7 et al AV),​

Not "self-justifying" But: ] "God-Justifying' ↑↑↑ Salvation ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑:​

+

"For The Grace Of God That Bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us​

that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and​

godly, in this present world; Looking for that Blessed Hope, and The Glorious Appearing​

of The Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" (Titus 2:11-13 AV)​

Thus, Only ONE more question After another 'prayerful / Careful review' of:

God's Eternal Salvation:​

According to A Very Vast Multitude of Plain and Clear Scriptures, Under God's Grace, Today!: ie:

God's OPERATION On All New-born babes In Christ!
+ Updates: (of # 11) + (of #14)
+
God's Eternal Life Assurance
+
God's Eternal Life Insurance

Q: We would be Very Happy to know Which Of ALL These Scriptures "Need to be Changed" in order
for the critics to show us Any "verying ( varying? ) degrees of delusion" we have to support
God's Eternal Salvation?
---------

But, you know what? Each of us is going to "decide for himself/herself" and give
An Account To God (1 Corinthians 3:8-15), Correct?

--------------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious AV Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Precious friend, agreed, since God Preserved His Precious AV Word Of Truth ….

​

You already know from my previous post that I believe the KJV is God’s word in English, an accurate, providential translation without error. I also believe that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying the KJV are the fully inspired words of God. But there is another important part of my position: the original languages can sometimes convey additional and deeper layers of meaning that cannot be fully reproduced in translation. That does not contradict the KJV, nor does it suggest that the KJV is in error.

You asked:

“So, why, a simpleton may ask: ‘Why are some confounded today with the AV, and we really “should Go DEEPER” into/with the originals to get the true meanings of things’?”

I believe I already answered the question of why we should sometimes “go deeper” into the underlying languages when I gave the example of Acts 14:12.

The KJV says that the people called Barnabas “Jupiter” and Paul “Mercurius.” Yet the underlying Greek actually says Zeus and Hermes. The KJV is not wrong. This is an example of interpretatio Romana, where Greek gods were identified by their corresponding Roman names. “Jupiter” corresponds to Zeus and “Mercurius” to Hermes.

A normal English reader, however, would not necessarily know from the English text alone that the actual Greek words are Zeus and Hermes. Looking at the Greek therefore gives us additional information and a deeper understanding of what is happening in the passage.

Does that mean the KJV is wrong?

Absolutely not.

Does it mean Acts 14:12 in the KJV is not God’s word in English?

Absolutely not.

It simply demonstrates the point I have already been making: an accurate translation can communicate the meaning correctly while the underlying inspired language can still contain additional linguistic, grammatical, historical, or contextual information that cannot always be reproduced completely in another language.

That is why I study the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying the KJV. I am not searching for a “true meaning” that contradicts the KJV. I am seeking a fuller understanding of the inspired words underlying God’s word in English.

You then said:

“What about all the ‘language scholars’ who Disagree with ‘each other’ = Confusion Confounded??? Therefore, us simpletons … will pass.”

But I am certainly not advocating that we blindly follow modern language scholars. Quite the opposite. I despise modern biblical scholarship and the false Modern Bibles produced from modern textual criticism.

When studying the biblical languages, I especially prefer pre-1700s Hebrew and Greek lexicons and older linguistic sources. These are far closer to the kind of resources available in the period of the KJV translators. In fact, the KJV translators would very likely have been familiar with and consulted major older lexicons of that era, such as Stephanus, Scapula, Bude, Buxtorf, similar scholarly resources.

So when I consult Stephanus and other older lexicons, I am not departing from the world of the KJV translators and running to modern scholarship. I am doing the opposite. I am going back to the older linguistic tools that were available in or near their own period.

The Hebrew and Greek languages themselves are not “modern scholarship.” They are the languages in which God inspired His words.

Furthermore, disagreement among scholars does not invalidate studying the languages. KJV readers disagree with each other about what the English means. In fact, you and I disagree about what the KJV teaches concerning eternal security. That does not mean the KJV is confusing or that we should stop studying it. It means fallible human beings sometimes disagree about interpretation.

You also appealed to becoming “like little children.”

I agree completely with childlike faith and humility before God’s word. But childlike faith does not mean refusing to study God’s word more deeply. The Bereans “searched the scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11), and Paul told Timothy, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15).

I want both. I want the faith and humility to believe what God says, and I want to study carefully what He has said.

You then appealed to the “simplicity that is in Christ.”

Again, I agree with the verse, but 2 Corinthians 11:3 is warning about having our minds corrupted and being led away from the simplicity that is in Christ. It is not teaching that Christians should avoid deeper study of Scripture or the languages in which God inspired it. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:15 was originally written in Greek and not English. So it was telling Christians of that time to study the Greek Scriptures. We still have the original Greek Scriptures in the form of copies. So we can still study them like the early church did.

Finally, you said:

“And, Further Refuse To Change God’s Teaching On His Grace / Eternal Salvation For His Body Of Christ!”

I agree that we should refuse to change God’s teaching. But I am not changing Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3-5, Titus 3:4-7, or any of the other passages you cited. I believe them exactly as they stand. Salvation is by God’s grace through faith and not something we earn by our works. I believe this is in regard to our Initial Salvation. Acts 15 holds the key to understanding Paul’s points that he keeps bringing up about being saved by God’s grace without works. The council in Acts 15 was dealing with the problem of “Circumcision Salvationism,” which is a false view of how one first gets saved.

When you ask which of those Scriptures need to be “changed” for me to reject OSAS, my answer is:

None.

I don’t want to change your verses. I simply disagree with the OSAS interpretation you are placing upon them.

Likewise, I don’t want to change the passages warning believers about falling away, being cut off, failing to continue in faith, failing to abide in Christ, or sowing to the flesh and reaping corruption.

So the question for me is not, “Which verses must we change?”

The question is, “Which interpretation allows us to believe all of them as they stand?”

That is what I am trying to do. I have no desire to change the KJV or to subject it to modern scholarship. I believe the KJV is God’s word in English. At the same time, I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying it are the fully inspired words of God and can sometimes reveal additional depths and nuances of meaning without contradicting the KJV in the slightest.



…..

 

[Dino246]

The KJV is an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Except for all the places that it isn't, like where it says Ahaziah was 42 years old at his coronation, and then says he was 22 years old at the same time. That's "an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew" for sure.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Precious friend, agreed, since God Preserved His Precious AV Word Of Truth For

us, in our "own language", similar To This, eh?:​

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the​

Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of​

every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together,​

and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."​

(Acts 2:4-6 AV)​

So, why, a simpleton may ask: "Why are some confounded today with the AV, and we really 'should
Go DEEPER' into/with the originals to get the true meanings of things"?

What about all the "language scholars" who Disagree with "each other" = Confusion Confounded???
[ Therefore, us simpletons { didn't Jesus Say: "...like little children..."? } will pass... ]

Especially with What Really Should Be "Simplicity In Christ", like this!:

And, Further Refuse To Change God's Teaching On His Grace / Eternal Salvation For His Body Of Christ!:

Correction: Some of us [ NON-lascivious ] Grace believers in "God's Eternal Salvation", teach
What God Taught us In His Precious AV Word Of Truth, About "Grace Through faith" Only

[ prayerfully / Carefully reviewing (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3-5; Titus 3:4-7 et al AV),​

Not "self-justifying" But: ] "God-Justifying' ↑↑↑ Salvation ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑ ↑↑↑:​

+

"For The Grace Of God That Bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us​

that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and​

godly, in this present world; Looking for that Blessed Hope, and The Glorious Appearing​

of The Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" (Titus 2:11-13 AV)​

Thus, Only ONE more question After another 'prayerful / Careful review' of:

God's Eternal Salvation:​

According to A Very Vast Multitude of Plain and Clear Scriptures, Under God's Grace, Today!: ie:

God's OPERATION On All New-born babes In Christ!
+ Updates: (of # 11) + (of #14)
+
God's Eternal Life Assurance
+
God's Eternal Life Insurance

Q: We would be Very Happy to know Which Of ALL These Scriptures "Need to be Changed" in order
for the critics to show us Any "verying ( varying? ) degrees of delusion" we have to support
God's Eternal Salvation?
---------

But, you know what? Each of us is going to "decide for himself/herself" and give
An Account To God (1 Corinthians 3:8-15), Correct?

--------------
And, precious friend(s), Please Be Very Richly Encouraged and Edified
In The Lord Jesus Christ and In His Precious AV Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided:

The Bible: The BIG Picture

Amen.

Also most modern scholars and or modern Bible believers say that the KjV has errors like all translations. I am not saying that. I believe the KJV is accurate and without error. I believe modern scholarship is corrupted. I don’t look to modern lexicons or listen to modern scholars. I look to the older lexicons, Ancient Greek, and sometimes the early church writers. In fact, the early church writers are especially important in defending the Johannine Comma against the critics of our day. If you’re interested, there is going to be a Comma Conference defending 1 John 5:7 on Nick Sayers’ YouTube channel this coming September 11-12th. There are going to be nine speakers. One of them is Phil Stringer. It’s going to be awesome!





….

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Except for all the places that it isn't, like where it says Ahaziah was 42 years old at his coronation, and then says he was 22 years old at the same time. That's "an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew" for sure.

I already explained this and it works fine from my perspective. So, this is a “nothing burger.”


….

 

[DavidLamb]

Except for all the places that it isn't, like where it says Ahaziah was 42 years old at his coronation, and then says he was 22 years old at the same time. That's "an accurate translation of the inspired Hebrew" for sure.

And the places where the English word or phrase used has changed its meaning since 1611. The AV/KJV makes it sound as though the Psalmist was saying that his prayer would stop God doing something:

KJV Psa 88:13 But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.
However, back in 1611 "prevent" meant "to go before," not "to stop something from happening."

We could end up with the idea that Paul and his companions went and got a direction-finding device from Syracuse:

KJV Act 28:12 And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days.
Act 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

But in 1611, "to fetch a compass" meant "to turn around."

Similarly with the word "carriages." Today, a carriage is a wheeled vehicle, which might seem to fit in a verse like this:

KJV Isa 46:1 Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast.

But in 1611, "carriages" meant "luggage" or "equipment".

 

[BartholomewB]

Believing God’s word by faith and defending it against corruptions is a subject that interests me greatly, although I am not out to endlessly convince the close-minded doubters or the “Yea, hath God said?” society. Why? Because they are never going to see it, no matter what evidence you show them.

Even now, I have shown you the pattern of changes for the worse in Modern Bibles on a massive scale, and it should have naturally clicked in your brain and made you say to yourself, “Yeah, you’re right, brother. That is a bad pattern of changes.”

But no. Instead, you gave the impression that you needed to fix or dismantle the evidence rather than seriously considering that the weight of the testimony could actually be true.

You are also not considering that false or bad English translations have led other believers astray into believing false things taught or implied in those Modern Bibles, such as Arianism, or even making it appear in certain passages as though Jesus sinned, etcetera.

You have also not considered that if God desires us to believe His words, and if He warns us not to add to or take away from those words, then there should be a single set of His words, a standard.

Granted, I am speaking primarily of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the KJV here. At the same time, I have no desire to change even the King James Bible itself. My goal in life is simply to believe God’s word, obey it, and refuse to change it based on the latest fad in modern scholarship.


....

We ran into a unfortunate and regrettable difficulty. The root of the matter is that our shared interest in the Greek NT arises from different concerns. My primary interest is in finding the best English wording to translate the Greek Biblical terminology, while yours is in selecting the best Greek manuscripts to be translated. Obviously each of those two activities is important, but your main focus is on one of them and mine on the other.

We seem to have come to the end of the road but, before we part company, I need to thank your for what had been, up till that moment, an interesting and fruitful exchange of ideas.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

We ran into a unfortunate and regrettable difficulty. The root of the matter is that our shared interest in the Greek NT arises from different concerns. My primary interest is in finding the best English wording to translate the Greek Biblical terminology, while yours is in selecting the best Greek manuscripts to be translated. Obviously each of those two activities is important, but your main focus is on one of them and mine on the other.

My position on this topic is that I am for:

(a) Knowing & teaching the meaning or understanding of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek copies we have from older lexicons, early church writers, reformation writers, etcetera and not from the Modern scholarship.​

(b) Defending the Traditional Text (TR/KJV) and fighting against the Critical Text (Westcott/Hort/NA29/Modern Bible Bibles).​

I would like to create my own Define King James Bible, similar to D.A. Waite's version but it will include sources to the older lexicons, etcetera and provide context notes, etc.; So it will not be my opinion.

Anyway, I believe English translation of the original languages is futile exercise if one does not at least accept the above truths.
It would be like ignoring big elephants in a room.

Not sure if you are aware of this, but modern lexicons have been changed involving certain words by providing expanded definitions that go beyond their historic usage.

My goal of course in all of this is not to put knowledge on a pedestal. My goal by all this is to glorify Jesus Christ and the life that He has given to me. I hope you have the same motivation, even if I disagree with your approach.

We seem to have come to the end of the road but, before we part company, I need to thank your for what had been, up till that moment, an interesting and fruitful exchange of ideas.

If you decide to write anything against my ESV list of changed doctrines I have shown, please let me know so I can show where I disagree according to the classic and early writers before German Rationalism and post modernistic ideas came about.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

And the places where the English word or phrase used has changed its meaning since 1611. The AV/KJV makes it sound as though the Psalmist was saying that his prayer would stop God doing something:

KJV Psa 88:13 But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.
However, back in 1611 "prevent" meant "to go before," not "to stop something from happening."

It's funny you brought up the word "prevent." I have argued endlessly with a fellow KJV defender named Bill Fortenberry on Facebook on the meaning of that word.

Bill Fortenberry’s Odd Stated Position on the word Prevent:

1. Bill is not saying that “prevent” means “pure obstruction” detached from the anticipatory sense (See “Side Note” for anticipation).
2. Bill says Prevent means either “preemption, forestalling, or hindrance” and all of them have an inherent sense of anticipation (preceding with the intent in forestalling another).

Side Note:

Anticipation:
1 a: a prior action that takes into account or forestalls a later action
hired more security guards in anticipation of a large crowd

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anticipation

Source for Bill Fortenberry’s Stated Position on Facebook for the Word Prevent:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DuEnHT71K/

Bill wrote a whole book on the topic, and I had ChatGPT analyze it.
According to the analysis by ChatGPT, he never really gives a clear definition like the one I got from Bill. It was only my engagement with him on that topic and asking and pushing did I get this definition out of him.
Bill is trying to enforce the modern meaning of stop into the older usage of the word "prevent." While there are some contextual cases that may include that idea at the time, the word "prevent" is primarily used back in the day as meaning "to precede."

In reality, the word "prevent" in the KJV just means "precede."

The word "let" in the KJV is different though.

Let can mean "restrain" and also to "allow." The underlying Greek and the context helps to determine which one is which.

Even in our modern English we have words that can have two different shades of meaning. Context and looking at the underlying original language word would help to determine what the meaning is.

In either case, I would still prefer using the KJV over a Modern Bible because my text is not mutilated with removing the Johannine Comma, double bracketing certain passages that says that the passage is not in there, the removal and changes of tons of verses that makes no sense. The issues you bring here are merely the case of older words that need to be learned. The KJV is not a Bible that you can just read casually and understand it instantly unless you have done the word studies or you are intimately familiar with 1600s English. But I would rather have somebody have the correct words of God than a corrupted form of it. People need to know how to fish. They should do word studies by looking to the older lexicons. Modern lexicons change the meaning of words at times. Modern Bibles constantly give you a conflicting mess of meanings between not only each other but within their own editions. Then the underlying Greek text for the Modern Bibles keeps shape-shifting and changing every few years. So there is no real settled word of God that you can trust. Plus it has a lot of bad and horrible readings. It's a dumpster fire.


Side Note:

I am creating a free educational comic that is sort of a rebuke of Bill's improper approach to understanding this word. It will also include other words by another fellow KJV defender who has invented an odd interpretation on the word "nigh" etc.



....