Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[OMC]

Again, we come right back to Jesus' own words. Jesus cared about the jots and tittles in the Hebrew text! We are talking about the smallest letters and strokes that make up the Hebrew writing. So, if God cared about even the smallest details of His Word back then, why would He suddenly become a radically different God today and give us some unhealthy McDonald's version of the Bible?

Granted, I do enjoy a Filet-O-Fish every now and then (especially when it comes fresh out of the fryer), but I certainly wouldn't want to live on that stuff! I know that a steady diet of such food would hardly be good for my physical health. And if I am that concerned about what goes into my physical body, how much more concerned should I be about what I am feeding myself spiritually? After all, Jesus said that man shall live "by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

But with Modern Bibles, I would argue that we are dealing with something even worse than spiritual fast food. We are talking about McDumpsters! Some of their readings are so bad and so dark that I cannot even bring myself to read them anymore, unless it is for the purpose of exposing their errors.
....

I agree with you on one point: if Jesus cared about the smallest details of God's Word, then we shouldn't be casual about textual questions.

Where I still hesitate is in the next step of the argument.

Jesus' statement about the jot and tittle was made concerning the divine authority and enduring nature of God's Word.
What I'm still trying to establish is how that statement demonstrates that one particular English translation, produced in 1611, must be the final and exclusive form of that preservation.

For example, believers before 1611 loved God's Word, memorized it, preached it, died for it, and were held accountable to it.
So preservation must have been operating before the KJV appeared.
The question then becomes: what exactly did God promise to preserve, and how did He preserve it?

I do appreciate your concern about confusion.
Nobody wants a situation where every reader becomes his own final authority.
But at the same time, I don't think the existence of textual discussions automatically means we have no trustworthy Bible.

I suppose what I'm still examining is whether the evidence leads to: "God preserved His Word."
or "God preserved His Word exclusively in the TR/KJV tradition."
I completely agree with the first statement.
The second is where I'm still asking questions.
And honestly, brother, that's one reason I prefer looking carefully at individual passages.
If the doctrine is truly as different as you believe it is, then those differences should be demonstrable from the texts themselves. That's where the discussion becomes the most fruitful for me.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Isaiah 34:16 definitely speaks of a preserved and authoritative word from God, but I don't immediately see the passage identifying a particular language, translation, or printed edition.
What does resonate with me is your larger concern.
If God intends to hold His people accountable to His words, then those words must be accessible, knowable, and trustworthy.
That's a fair theological point and one worth wrestling with.
I suppose my question would be: does Isaiah 34:16 establish that God preserves His word, or does it establish which specific text tradition represents that preservation?
Those seem to be two separate conclusions.
Either way, I appreciate that you're trying to make a biblical argument rather than merely a historical one.
That's always a stronger place to start.

I think you are overlooking the main point I was making from Isaiah 34:16. I was not suggesting that this verse explicitly identifies a particular English translation or printed edition (Although I personally do believe it will be the KJV and possibly along with its underlying original languages). I was trying to get you to see first the significance about the wording itself.

Isaiah 34:16 says, "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read." Now, notice that God does not say "books" (plural), but "book" (singular). The Hebrew expression is סֵפֶר יְהוָֹה (sēpher YHWH), meaning "the book of the LORD." The Hebrew word סֵפֶר (sēpher) is a masculine singular noun in the construct state. The plural would be סְפָרִים (sephārîm), meaning "books." But that is NOT what the Hebrew says here! You can verify this yourself by examining the Hebrew grammatical analysis here: https://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/34-16.htm.

Now, why is this important? Because Scripture directs us to seek out "the book of the LORD", not a collection of competing textual variations in which one reading says something and another says something entirely different. The command is to seek out and read what God has written in a book (or a singular collective written work)!

Granted, the singular word "book" does not, by itself, identify which particular textual tradition faithfully preserves those words. That requires further examination. But neither should we overlook the fact that the passage presents a singular book belonging to the LORD as the object of this command.

So my point concerns something more basic or foundational here. If God commands us to seek out His book and read it, then we ought to be able to identify what that book actually says. Otherwise, how could we confidently distinguish between God's words and the conflicting readings introduced by men? This is precisely why the question of which text faithfully preserves God's words is so fundamentally important.


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I agree with you on one point: if Jesus cared about the smallest details of God's Word, then we shouldn't be casual about textual questions.

Where I still hesitate is in the next step of the argument.

Jesus' statement about the jot and tittle was made concerning the divine authority and enduring nature of God's Word.
What I'm still trying to establish is how that statement demonstrates that one particular English translation, produced in 1611, must be the final and exclusive form of that preservation.

For example, believers before 1611 loved God's Word, memorized it, preached it, died for it, and were held accountable to it.
So preservation must have been operating before the KJV appeared.
The question then becomes: what exactly did God promise to preserve, and how did He preserve it?

I do appreciate your concern about confusion.
Nobody wants a situation where every reader becomes his own final authority.
But at the same time, I don't think the existence of textual discussions automatically means we have no trustworthy Bible.

I suppose what I'm still examining is whether the evidence leads to: "God preserved His Word."
or "God preserved His Word exclusively in the TR/KJV tradition."
I completely agree with the first statement.
The second is where I'm still asking questions.
And honestly, brother, that's one reason I prefer looking carefully at individual passages.
If the doctrine is truly as different as you believe it is, then those differences should be demonstrable from the texts themselves. That's where the discussion becomes the most fruitful for me.

Matthew 5:18 (KJV) — Jesus Christ said:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."​

I believe this is the Hebrew being preserved today.
This would be the Hebrew underlying the KJV, which is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic.

For the Greek, it is the Beza 1598 + 50 or so translatable differences that can be found in either previous TR editions, the Complutensian Polyglot, and other Greek witnesses.

The original languages is what I would see as the inspired words of God that are perfectly preserved and we have an accurate (error-free) English translation that can help aid in understanding the original language texts we have today (in the form of copies). Granted, the KJV does not convey every nuance of the Hebrew, and Greek, but nevertheless, it still is the English Bible that should be preached from in English speaking churches.

People with Modern Bibles do not even know sometimes which Bible to bring because the pastor may use multiple versions.



....

 

[Genez]

Just when I began entering into my conversion experience to become a full time Christian I attended Bible studies of various persuasions.

On one occasion a friend of a relative handed me a pocket Bible.
It was a King James NT version.

I kept it and placed in a drawer in my room.
Needless to say, at that time in my life I was experiencing a great deal of inner pain and and a deep sense of detachment from life.

At times I would take that KJV out the drawer to start to read it.

What it made me think was that Christianity is an outdated religion.
Meant for a people from a different time which was not relevant for today.
It made me believe that back then (King James era) people were religious on a primitive level of thinking.
I could read it only for a minute before feeling discouraged and placing it back in the drawer.

A few years later my niece handed me a soft cover of a NT in what was at that time the current edition for the NIV...

I would sit there and read it.
To my pleasant surprise I became totally absorbed in how it communicated to me.
I soon began devouring it like a starving man.
Things about Jesus were for the first time making sense.
And, I also began to feel highly encouraged.

Then I moved to Bible college where the KJV was the main staple.
I kept my NIV with me and used it for all activities and classes.
And, I am happy to say, years later I graduated with honors.

While in school I listened to teachers using the KJV.
At times totally missing what was being said in the KJV because it's ancient worded way.
In church and classes I sat their with my NIV seeing how some teaching was totally missing what was meant because of anachronism.
But the hearers in the congregation accepted what they were told to believe.

So much for that.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Just when I began entering into my conversion experience to become a full time Christian I attended Bible studies of various persuasions.

On one occasion a friend of a relative handed me a pocket Bible.
It was a King James NT version.

I kept it and placed in a drawer in my room.
Needless to say, at that time in my life I was experiencing a great deal of inner pain and and a deep sense of detachment from life.

At times I would take that KJV out the drawer to start to read it.

What it made me think was that Christianity is an outdated religion.
Meant for a people from a different time which was not relevant for today.
It made me believe that back then (King James era) people were religious on a primitive level of thinking.
I could read it only for a minute before feeling discouraged and placing it back in the drawer.

A few years later my niece handed me a soft cover of a NT in what was at that time the current edition for the NIV...

I would sit there and read it.
To my pleasant surprise I became totally absorbed in how it communicated to me.
I soon began devouring it like a starving man.
Things about Jesus were for the first time making sense.
And, I also began to feel highly encouraged.

Then I moved to Bible college where the KJV was the main staple.
I kept my NIV with me and used it for all activities and classes.
And, I am happy to say, years later I graduated with honors.

While in school I listened to teachers using the KJV.
At times totally missing what was being said in the KJV because it's ancient worded way.
In church and classes I sat their with my NIV seeing how some teaching was totally missing what was meant because of anachronism. But the hearers in the congregation accepted what they were told to believe.

So much for that.

Our life experience should not define the truth of things. Sometimes God can talk to us through life experience, and sometimes this is not the case. In my life experience with God, I experienced the exact opposite than you involving the King James Bible and the Modern Versions. I believe the Lord showed me the purity and accuracy of the KJV while seeing the corruptions in Modern Bibles.

This is because I care about truth and understand that there can only be one Bible and not many.


.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Just when I began entering into my conversion experience to become a full time Christian I attended Bible studies of various persuasions.

On one occasion a friend of a relative handed me a pocket Bible.
It was a King James NT version.

I kept it and placed in a drawer in my room.
Needless to say, at that time in my life I was experiencing a great deal of inner pain and and a deep sense of detachment from life.

At times I would take that KJV out the drawer to start to read it.

What it made me think was that Christianity is an outdated religion.
Meant for a people from a different time which was not relevant for today.
It made me believe that back then (King James era) people were religious on a primitive level of thinking.
I could read it only for a minute before feeling discouraged and placing it back in the drawer.

A few years later my niece handed me a soft cover of a NT in what was at that time the current edition for the NIV...

I would sit there and read it.
To my pleasant surprise I became totally absorbed in how it communicated to me.
I soon began devouring it like a starving man.
Things about Jesus were for the first time making sense.
And, I also began to feel highly encouraged.

Then I moved to Bible college where the KJV was the main staple.
I kept my NIV with me and used it for all activities and classes.
And, I am happy to say, years later I graduated with honors.

While in school I listened to teachers using the KJV.
At times totally missing what was being said in the KJV because it's ancient worded way.
In church and classes I sat their with my NIV seeing how some teaching was totally missing what was meant because of anachronism.
But the hearers in the congregation accepted what they were told to believe.

So much for that.

Readability is not the issue with truth, either.
Jesus spoke in parables and said many things that were not understood right away.
Even Peter said that the apostle Paul was hard to understand.


.....

 

[Genez]

Again, I challenge you to look into the matter.
Once you do, you will see the I am correct, unless of course you do not want to see it.

I have looked into the matter.
Years ago.
What you say is not something new to me.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I have looked into the matter.
Years ago.
What you say is not something new to me.

So you don’t care that John 1:18 in the NASB 95 teaches Arianism?
So you don’t care that Modern versions tell you to marry your rapist?



….

 

[Genez]

So you don’t care that John 1:18 in the NASB 95 teaches Arianism?
So you don’t care that Modern versions tell you to marry your rapist?

What? How is that Arianism?

NASB 95... John 1:18 says this.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, ​

He has explained Him.​

What you are not aware of is that the Greek that was translated "explained Him."
I learned the following from another pastor who taught from the original languages.
" explained Him" Is the same Greek word commanded of pastors to exegete the Word of God to their congregation.

In other words?
Jesus takes God who we can not naturally perceive.

And?
He exegetes God to us in "human speak" via His humanity which is working together with His Deity.

Arianism? How?