Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[PaulThomson]

Second, the Greek conjunction καί (kai), meaning "and," does not establish a change of speaker. It can connect statements made by the same speaker just as easily as statements made by different speakers. So merely pointing to καί does not prove your interpretation.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I never claimed to have proven that the kai establishes a change of speaker. I merely pointed out that there can be a change in speaker following kai, as John 1:16-18 establishes, against your original false claim that the use of kai in John 3:13 establishes that there is no change of speaker. I am not claiming to prove my interpretation. I am only claiming to validate my interpretation as grammatically, syntactically and discourse analytically sound.

Third, look at the immediate context of John 3:10–15.

In John 3:10, Jesus is explicitly identified as the one speaking to Nicodemus. In verse 12, Jesus says:

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Then, immediately in verse 13, we read:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Notice the connection. Jesus has just been discussing His authority to speak about heavenly things, and the very next verse explains His unique relationship to heaven. The following verses continue discussing the Son of man and His being lifted up (John 3:14–15).

Where is the contextual indication that the apostle John suddenly interrupts Jesus here?

Again, where are the specific words, larger explanatory clauses, or contextual indicators that we find in John 1:15–18 and John 2:19–21, which help us recognize when the apostle John is providing his own commentary? There are no such comparable words or explanatory clauses here in John 3:13 that clearly establish a change of speaker. Instead, the passage naturally continues Jesus' discussion of heavenly things with Nicodemus. So why should we suddenly insert an interruption by the apostle John when neither the Greek nor the English provides the same kind of clear indication we find in the earlier examples?

If you were to go to BibleHub right now and read John 3:1–15 in the KJV, you would see that the natural flow of the passage does not support inserting the interpretation you are trying to force into the text. It sounds odd and out of place to suggest that the apostle John suddenly interrupts Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in verse 13. So why are you doing this? Because you have a barrow to push, rather than simply allowing the passage to speak for itself.

I'm not interested in going back and forth on this anymore. It's obvious that you are doing backflip twists through hoops of fire while poodles are latched onto your fingers with their little teeth. I mean, we can maybe see one of the nine as an exception, but ALL nine of them needing to be explained away by some strained, oddball, crazy, forced, and unnatural theory is a bit too much. Just let the Bible speak to you naturally and plainly, and stop trying to fight against what the text plainly says. We see a clear pattern of Jesus having His own divine power during His earthly ministry. You may not like that idea, but it's what the Bible teaches plainly in nine places.

I would suggest that John's use of the present perfect fits comfortably contextually with Jesus ascension being in the past of the speaking of John 3:13. Since Jesus had not yet ascended, it makes sense that it is John commenting from a perspective where Jesus has already ascended, that is, as John is writing his account.

I would also suggest that John's use of the aorist passive infinitive (ὑψωθῆναι ) after dei (it is necessary), not the future passive infinitive, is favourable contextually to it being John looking back on Jesus' crucifixion, not Jesus looking forward to His crucifixion.
Jhn 3:14
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (ὑψωθῆναι ):
Jhn 3:13
And no man hath ascended (ἀναβέβηκεν ) up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.I am not claiming that no one can possibly make a case for these details fitting with Jesus looking forward to His own crucifixion. Maybe they can. I am saying that these contextual clues are compatible with the voice shifting from Jesus to the evangekist at v 13.