Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[OMC]

It is an ongoing action that is contingent if we are holding fast. The present state does not negate the ongoing action.

There are only 14 occurrences in the NT with verbs parsed the same way that I can see.

I do not have time presently to go through them thoroughly. But scratching the surface I do not see where we can ignore the process of the present action happening. Here are the verses:
Matthew 23:28
2 Corinthians 6:12
Ephesians 2:22
Philippians 2:15
Colossians 2:20
1 Corinthians 6:7
1 Corinthians 15:2
Galatians 5:4
Galatians 5:18
1 Peter 2:5
1 Peter 4:14
Mark 5:39
Mark 12:24
Mark 12:27



There are older ones also, YLT for one.

1Cor 15:2 through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain,


Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As I said I am pressed for time. However I intend to give your post the attention it deserves when I am a bit more freed up.

May the Lord our God continue to bless us in all His Way, Jesus Christ.

That's a good observation, and I think it strengthens your argument that this isn't just a "modern translation" issue.
Even Young's Literal Translation renders it: "through which also ye are being saved ... if ye hold fast..."
So let me ask the question this way: If Paul wanted to emphasize a completed, unconditional event here, why use a present-passive form and then immediately attach an "if you hold fast" condition?
That doesn't sound like Paul is merely looking back to a past profession of faith.
It sounds like he's describing an ongoing reality connected to perseverance in the gospel

 

[Lovette]

So, if all Bibles have errors, then who becomes the authority to decide what is an error and what is not an error in God's word? Is that not placing the authority in the hands of man or the individual instead of God? (Proverbs 30:5-6; Romans 3:4, KJV).

You do realize that we believe in the existence of a perfect, singular word of God because of Scripture, right? (Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 119:89, 160; Isaiah 34:16; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 24:35; John 10:35, KJV).

So, where does Scripture teach that we each have the authority to pick and choose which readings belong in God's word and which ones do not? Are there any verses that support the idea that you can simply chop up the Bible however you like in your own mind, deciding, "This reading belongs in the Bible, but that reading does not"? (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:18-19, KJV).

What authority in Scripture do you have for claiming that it is idolatry to believe God has preserved His words and that His word is perfect? And if we find corrupted forms of His word, where does Scripture teach that it is wrong to rebuke such things?

And if every Bible contains errors, then by what perfect standard are you determining those errors in the first place?



.....

And please understand that this is not about the authoritativeness of the bible, but the imperfection of KJV. One simple example, in KJV the Holy Spirit is translated as the Holy "Ghost", how could the third person of the Godhead, the life-giving spirit be a "ghost"? Ghost is the disembodied soul of a dead person, typically being punished to wander around the world of the living until their unfinished business is settled. It could also mean hallucination. When Jesus was walking on water, the disciples thought they were seeing a "ghost"; when Jesus walked into the disciple's dwelling place after his resurrection, Thomas thought he was seeing a "ghost". Don't you think this is quite a big misconception that would directly affect your understanding of the godhead? Jesus taught that God is the God of the LIVING, not the dead, but how could that be, when the third person of the godhead is a "ghost"?

 

[ResidentAlien]

In 1611 I guess people understood what was meant by "ghost," but it's another example of how language that made sense back then is completely inappropriate now.