Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[CS1]

In the context of my debate, while it was not mentioned, I am referring to “KJV believer(s)” as:

(1) KJV-English-only believers who believe that the KJV is without error.​

(2) Believers who are for the KJV + Its Underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and view both as without error.​

While KJV Preferred believers (who believe the KJV contains errors) can say they are KJV believers, they are not full or entire KJV believers and thus fall short of being pure or true KJV believers in the most absolute sense. They would be 90% KJV believers or some other percentage-type KJV believers. This means some other authority or text must be added to make up the difference. It is also not duplicatable as a belief. One KJV Preferred believer is most likely going to disagree with another KJV Preferred believer over a particular reading in the KJV. So while one of them may think these words should be in their KJV, the other could simply disagree with them.

Therefore, the KJV Preferred belief position is looking at the KJV with a “Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible” type mentality (albeit not as extreme as those who take a Multi-Versional approach in the Modern Bible Movement). The apostle Paul says “that ye all speak the same thing” (1 Corinthians 1:10). This is not possible if believers do not share a settled text.

Side Note:

While I disagree with my KJV-English-only brethren over their refusal to look to the original languages or their downplaying of them, I respect their position in believing Scripture that teaches that God's words are pure words and that they shall be preserved forever.


....

can I ask you what is a definition of " without Error" ? Ans what is an error? Thank you.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

The Messenger of the LORD Ascending from the Sacrificial Altar: A Picture of Christ Raising Himself:

The Hebrew word מַלְאָךְ (malʾākh), translated “angel,” means “messenger” in Hebrew. This meaning also existed in Middle English. The Middle English Dictionary defines one sense of “aunǧel” as “A human messenger of God; a priest, a prophet.” It provides this example referring to John the Baptist:

“He [John the Baptist] is þe aungel þat God bihett þat schulde come & make þe weye tofore Crist.”

In present-day English: “He [John the Baptist] is the angel that God promised would come and prepare the way before Christ” (compare Luke 7:27).

This quotation is from the Pepysian Gospel Harmony, dated before 1400 in the MED. John the Baptist was a human messenger. So the expression “angel of the LORD” does not, by itself, mean that this must be a created heavenly or celestial angel. His identity must be understood from the context. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary/MED3046

The account announcing Samson’s birth provides another important connection (Judges 13). I believe this Messenger of the LORD is a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Christ. When Manoah asks His name, He says it is “secret” (Judges 13:18) (KJV). If you go to Blue Letter Bible, you will see that the same Hebrew word, listed as H6383, occurs in two places in the Old Testament. It is translated as “secret” in Judges 13:18 and “wonderful” in Psalm 139:6. So the connection with “wonderful” is established by the KJV’s own use of this Hebrew word. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6383/kjv/wlc/0-1/

This connects with Christ being called “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6). The Hebrew word translated “Wonderful” there is a related word from the same root. Christians are familiar with calling Jesus our wonderful Counsellor and singing about Him in those terms. Here, the Messenger’s name is described as wonderful, and after witnessing His miraculous departure, Manoah says that they have seen God (Judges 13:22). These details support identifying this Messenger as the pre-incarnate Christ.

Please take note of how this Messenger departs. Manoah offers a sacrifice, and the Messenger of the LORD ascends in the flame of the altar (Judges 13:19–20). This is an altar of sacrifice. We see here a striking picture of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross as the Passover Lamb followed by His resurrection and ascension. The sacrificial altar corresponds typologically to the cross, where Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5:7).

The Messenger Himself ascends in the flame. Nobody in the account lifts Him or carries Him upward. I believe the sequence pictures His victory following sacrifice: the divine Messenger rises from the sacrificial altar.

Therefore, we can see this as an Old Testament picture consistent with Jesus raising Himself, just as He expressly says He will raise His own body (John 2:19–21). His acting in unity with the Father does not mean that He lacks or never exercises His own divine power.


Author (Owner) of this writeup: 𝓑𝒾𝒷𝓁ℯ 𝓗𝒾ℊ𝒽𝓁𝒾ℊ𝒽𝓉ℯ𝓇
Date of Writeup: 10-2-2026.
Edition: 1st Edition.
Website: www.affectionsabove.com
Permission of use: Post writeup for free with my author name "Bible Highlighter" as long as it is not for profit.
May the Lord Jesus bless you all.


....

 

[John146]

can I ask you what is a definition of " without Error" ? Ans what is an error? Thank you.

One is in error. Which one?

2 Samuel 21:19

KJV
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV
19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

John 5:21 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ.
Just as the Father is raising the dead and is making alive, even so the Son is raising whom He [the Father (?) or the Son (?) ] is willing [to raise].

It is ambiguous to whom the οὓς refers, whether it is the Father or the Son. The sense could easily be -
"Just as the Father is raising the dead and is making alive, even so the Son is raising whom the Father is willing the Son to raise."

Clearly, Jesus gave His disciples authority in His name to raise the dead. They were not proven to possess omnipotence by this manifest delegated authority and Holy Spirit bestowed power working through them. I don't see how this text proves that Jesus was not raising the dead by the Father's authority and the Holy Spirit's power working in the same way through Him.

Can we agree that this is not a slam dunk for your theory?

You were not able to see how Abraham believed God concerning His promise and how that belief (not faithfulness) was accounted to him as righteousness. Romans 4 is talking about initial salvation and using this clear example. Most Christians understand the basic truth about Abraham and yet you have an oddball interpretation that I do not believe a Greek professor whose native tongue is Greek and who has lived in Greece all their life would agree with.

None of the KJV translators translated it the way you are suggesting, and I am not aware of any of them commenting later in support of your interpretation. I believe the KJV translators were the best scholars who have ever lived. They gave us the Bible that has led to the three greatest revivals and led to a unity and memorization of God's word unlike any other translation. Back in the day, when people thought of the Bible it was the KJV and not your reconstruction that exists most likely only in your own mind that will fade away like the dust in the wind when you pass on in this life. Even if you did manage to publish the edition of what you think the Bible should say in Greek or English, it will die on the shelf along with other obscure and embarrassing books. Your unique text of what you think the Bible will say will not even be a blip on the radar in history. So I fail to see why you feel you should bother to push your oddball theories on what the Bible really says here. God is not going to hold people accountable for not being able to read your mind to get the actual words of God. Nor are they lining up at your home to have you explain what the Bible actually says.

So forgive me if I do not engage with you on the Greek again. Based on our previous exchanges, I do not see how repeating that discussion would help you acknowledge what the biblical text actually says. Going through the Greek with you is time-consuming, so I think this discussion is best left to you and a Greek professor who meets those qualifications.

If you can provide such a Greek scholar who agrees with your interpretation and addresses all nine of my points on Christ having power during His earthly ministry concerning the Greek, then we can talk. Until then, I see you as reading the Bible through your own private interpretations and trying to impose them upon the biblical text. I see what you are doing as eisegesis (reading your own ideas into the text), rather than exegesis (drawing the meaning from the text). But then again, we are living in the last days and everyone thinks they have the real Bible existing ONLY in their own mind. How insane. How utterly stupid.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

can I ask you what is a definition of " without Error" ? Ans what is an error? Thank you.

This sounds like a trap of getting me to define something that I may need to later qualify.
Everyone knows what an error is.
As an example, Mark Ward has claimed an error in the KJV.
He argues that the KJV’s “tabret” should instead refer to spitting.
In one of his videos, at approximately 9:11 minute mark, he also says:
“I believe that God has preserved his word but not in a word perfect way.”
YouTube Video - Mark Ward

I obviously disagree with him.

I believe God preserved his words in a word perfect way in both 1600s English with the KJV and with its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I would never attack the KJV and say it has errors like what Mark Ward does because I believe every word is correct in the KJV, and in its underlying original languages. If you disagree and try to attack that, we should also consider the illogical nature of having a shape-shifter text like the Critical Text Modern Bible Movement and how that really does not work in the real world. I mean, you obviously would not test fly a plane built on conflicting schematics. You wouldn't buy a house that was based on multiple conflicting contracts. Then why do so with a book that deals with your soul? If there is just one error in the Bible, what makes you to trust the rest of the words? Also, are we to just ignore the heretics that shaped the Modern Critical Text of our day? What about the new ECM reading that has changed the UBS6 to say that Jesus will become the I AM. How insane. How stupid. If you are for the Critical Text, do you really think I am gonna fall for this kind of slop? Its so bad. How on Earth that such a movement still even exists beyond me. All a person to do is research a little and they see all the corrupt doctrines in Modern Bibles. It's not that hard. Only a person who gets a rush out of slicing up the Bible like it is a piece of meat will not be able to see any of the corrupt doctrines in their own Modern Bible Movement. it's spiritual darkness that clouds their eyes because of their addiction to chopping up the Bible with an axe. So I hope that clears things up on what I mean.




....