Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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.
 
I never said it does establish my position. I merely claimed that it validates the possibility of my position being what John had in mind. And it demonstrates that your previous assertion that John 3: 13-21. cannot be the apostle's commentary rather than Jesus' own words because in is introduced with kai, is untenable. These verses could be Jesus' words, but they could also be John's own words. Scholars vary on whether John 3:13-21 are all Jesus' words; or are Jesus' words until verse 15 inclusive and John's commentary from 17 to 21 inclusive; or are all the evangelist's words from v. 13 to 21 inclusive. The text per se reads quite naturally either of those three ways. Your claims that only the first option can possibly be correct is epistemically presumptuous and false

The contextual differences between the John 1 and the John 3 passages is completely irrelevant to whether John 3:13-21 are a continuation of Jesus reply to Nicidemus orr are the evangelist's own comments. Just because some grammatical structure is used in one context that has certain features is not proof that it cannot be being used in a different context which lacks those features. I challenge any reader of this post -

"Read John 3 with an open mind as to whether vv. 13-21 are John's explanatory comments, and judge for yourself whether the chapter flows perfectly well in accord with that possibility. Judge for yourself whether @Bible_Highlighter is overly dismissive of this possibility, given the correlation to John 1:16-18,which has the same structure and purpose.
Again, I think you have a barrow to push and you are not reading the entire list of points I made with Scripture as one thematic point. A plain reading of it in the KJV English is exactly what it means (along with its underlying original languages). If you think I got the English meaning wrong, I would love to hear it. But the KJV Translators (47 + of them) knew the original languages fluently and better than most post modernist scholars of our day. Some of them knew multiple languages. Look into their credentials sometime. Do a deep dive into how much they knew. Do a deep dive how many passes they did in translation for the KJV. It as tons of times they went over the text and even translating it several times among many of them before they printed it in 1611. In fact, there was even some later refinement after 1611 by the KJV translators, as well. I say this because I would rather trust their scholarship and translation than yours. You do not even have even 5% of the knowledge that they knew, and you want to correct what they said. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You think you are some kind of Koine Greek expert who knows better than all the KJV translators combined.

In other words, I look to not only the Hebrew, and Greek that underlies the KJV, but I also look at the English word (Jacobean English) that the KJV translators chose as my authority. This means I am not relying on my own private interpretation on just the Hebrew and Greek alone but I also rest my faith on the 1600s English translation choice by the KJV translators, as well. That way, when I stand before the Lord Jesus, I cannot be judged harshly for following what existed in my own head alone for what a verse or passage said but I rest upon the greats that came before me who truly knew these languages and were great men of God. In short, I go with the unity of the church through history and I am not some lone wolf operator.


....
 
Again, I think you have a barrow to push and you are not reading the entire list of points I made with Scripture as one thematic point. A plain reading of it in the KJV English is exactly what it means (along with its underlying original languages). If you think I got the English meaning wrong, I would love to hear it. But the KJV Translators (47 + of them) knew the original languages fluently and better than most post modernist scholars of our day. Some of them knew multiple languages. Look into their credentials sometime. Do a deep dive into how much they knew. Do a deep dive how many passes they did in translation for the KJV. It as tons of times they went over the text and even translating it several times among many of them before they printed it in 1611. In fact, there was even some later refinement after 1611 by the KJV translators, as well. I say this because I would rather trust their scholarship and translation than yours. You do not even have even 5% of the knowledge that they knew, and you want to correct what they said. This is why I cannot take you seriously. You think you are some kind of Koine Greek expert who knows better than all the KJV translators combined.

In other words, I look to not only the Hebrew, and Greek that underlies the KJV, but I also look at the English word (Jacobean English) that the KJV translators chose as my authority. This means I am not relying on my own private interpretation on just the Hebrew and Greek alone but I also rest my faith on the 1600s English translation choice by the KJV translators, as well. That way, when I stand before the Lord Jesus, I cannot be judged harshly for following what existed in my own head alone for what a verse or passage said but I rest upon the greats that came before me who truly knew these languages and were great men of God. In short, I go with the unity of the church through history and I am not some lone wolf operator.


....


You clearly have a barrow to push. And you have a long career invested in defending pushing your barrow.

You are stuck in an "appeal to authority" fallacy loop, friend. Who agrees with you does not prove you are right. Finding dictionaries that give your preferred semantic meaning to a word does not prove that that is the meaning the biblical author understood, or the secret meaning the Holy Spirit perhaps intended to hide for a season in the authors words. There may be valid meanings to a text that the KJV editors overlooked or missed. They were mere men like you and I. I can read the hebrew ot greek fr myself and come to different conclusions than your authorities.

No prophecy is of private interpretation. The KJV editors interpretations are thier own/private. So are mine. So are yours. The scriptures mean what the Holy Spirit meant. He interprets them to me and to you and to the KJV editors, if we are willing to go to Him to receive His interpretation.

Chat GPT could not point me to John 1:16-18 as an explanatory baside to rebut your claims re John 3:13-21 not possibly being an explanatory aside. But the Holy Spirit could. No prophecy is of private interpretation. The prophets wrote as the Holy Spirit carried them along. He interprets the scriptures. I do not think your private interpretation agrees with what the the Holy Spirit was saying.
 
6 "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth
his glory; and his disciples believed on him." John 2:11). This was a direct
statement. Meaning, Christ's miracle at the wedding of Cana manifested His
glory. This was his first miracle done by Jesus, and it was a part of His showing
forth His deity as God. The apostle John did not say that the Lord Jesus manifested
the Holy Spirit's glory, but His own glory. So when Jesus turned water into wine
(unfermented wine), it was an act that manifested His own power as the Son of
God.
What do you think "glory" means biblically. It means reputation/fame and those aspects of oneself that enhance one's reputation/fame, that make one famous.
Psa 3:3
But thou, O LORD, art a shield for me; my glory, and the lifter up of mine head.

JHWH was David's glory. Was David omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because God was His glory? No. David did exploits because God was with him to make him prosper and His reputation increase. So, why should Jesus' glory, JHWH, working miracles through Jesus and making Him prosper, so that His fame began to increase among His disciples, mean require Jesus to be necessarily omnipotent - when God did the same through David and David was not necessarily omnipotent because of it.
 
7. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13
14). This was said by Jesus before the cross, and answering prayers is definitely a
divine act of God. Please pay close attention to what Jesus said. He said, "I will do
it" in reference to answering prayer. So if a person prays for a healing in His
name, he will do it. He will be the One who will heal them and do it.
Yes, Jesus said that after His return to heaven and after sending them the Holy Spirit to dwell within them, rather than just with them, He would do for them whatever they asked of Him. How does making an assertion about future conditions prove those conditions are presently the case, as well? That conclusion is a non sequitur.
 
Yes, Jesus said that after His return to heaven and after sending them the Holy Spirit to dwell within them, rather than just with them, He would do for them whatever they asked of Him. How does making an assertion about future conditions prove those conditions are presently the case, as well? That conclusion is a non sequitur.

You mentioned Christ’s return to heaven and the indwelling Holy Spirit. John 14:12 does concern the future works believers would perform after Christ returned to the Father, and those works would be accomplished through the Holy Ghost:

“He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also” (John 14:12).

However, that does not change the grammatical subject of verses 13–14. Verse 12 says what the believer will do, but verses 13–14 expressly state what Jesus Himself will do:

“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” (John 14:13).

“If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14).

The distinction is plain:

(1). “He that believeth on me … shall he do” (John 14:12).​
(2). “That will I do” (John 14:13).​
(3). “I will do it” (John 14:14).​

The word “And” connects these statements, but it does not erase their different grammatical subjects. Believers would perform the visible works through the Holy Ghost, while Jesus would act in response to what they asked in His name.

Furthermore, your future-conditions argument assumes that Jesus would only become capable of doing this after His resurrection or ascension. Jesus never states that limitation. He does not say, “Only after I ascend will I become able to do this.”

In fact, the same Gospel explicitly shows Jesus exercising this divine authority before the cross and claiming the work as His own.

Jesus healed the impotent man at Bethesda by commanding:

“Rise, take up thy bed, and walk” (John 5:8).​

The result was immediate:

“And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked” (John 5:9).​

When the Jews persecuted Jesus over this miracle, Jesus personally claimed the work:

“My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17).​

He did not say merely that the Holy Ghost had performed the miracle independently of Him. He said, “I work.”

Jesus then declared:

“For what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).​

He continued:

“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will” (John 5:21).​

The words “whom he will” are important. Jesus claimed both the authority and will to give life. He did not present Himself as a passive instrument waiting for someone else to decide what would happen.

The Jews understood the divine significance of His words:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18).​

John 5 therefore answers your future-conditions objection. Before the cross, resurrection, and ascension, Jesus had already performed the miracle and said:

“I work.”​
“These also doeth the Son likewise.”​
“The Son quickeneth whom he will.”​

There are also at least three clear examples in which people earnestly asked Jesus to help someone who was physically elsewhere, and Jesus granted the request.

(1). Jesus granted the centurion’s request and healed his servant from a distance.

“And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him” (Matthew 8:5).​

The Greek reads:

προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρχος παρακαλῶν αὐτόν​
“A centurion came to Him, beseeching Him.”​

The word παρακαλῶν comes from παρακαλέω (parakaleō), which can mean to call upon, ask, beg, plead, beseech, entreat, or implore.

The centurion said:

“Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented” (Matthew 8:6).​

The servant was “at home.” Jesus was not physically present with him. Nevertheless, the centurion believed that Jesus could personally heal him merely by speaking:

“Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed” (Matthew 8:8).​

The centurion compared Christ’s authority to his own ability to issue commands:

“For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth” (Matthew 8:9).​

His point was that just as his commands were carried out because of his authority, Jesus possessed authority to command the sickness itself.

Jesus did not correct his understanding. He praised it:

“I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:10).​

Jesus then granted his request:

“Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour” (Matthew 8:13).​

The passage directly connects the healing with Christ’s authoritative word. The centurion believed Jesus could command the healing from a distance, Jesus praised that belief as “great faith,” and the servant was healed “in the selfsame hour.”

(2). Jesus granted the nobleman’s request and healed his son from a distance.

The nobleman “besought him that he would come down, and heal his son” (John 4:47).

The Greek reads:

ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα καταβῇ καὶ ἰάσηται αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱόν​
“He was asking Him that He would come down and heal his son.”​

The word ἠρώτα comes from ἐρωτάω (erōtaō), meaning to ask, request, entreat, beg, or beseech. The imperfect form presents the nobleman as asking or entreating Jesus.

Jesus answered:

“Go thy way; thy son liveth” (John 4:50).​

The nobleman later discovered that the healing occurred at the exact time Jesus spoke:

“So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth” (John 4:53).​

Jesus heard the request, pronounced the result, and the distant healing occurred “at the same hour.”



[ Continued in my next post ]

....
 
(3). Jesus granted the Canaanite woman’s request and healed her daughter from a distance.

The woman cried to Jesus:

“Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil” (Matthew 15:22).​

She then worshipped Him and asked:

“Lord, help me” (Matthew 15:25).​

The parallel account makes the request even more explicit:

“The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter” (Mark 7:26).​

The Greek reads:

ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς​
“She was asking Him that He would cast the devil out of her daughter.”​

Once again, the verb is ἐρωτάω (erōtaō), meaning to ask, request, entreat, beg, or beseech. It is also in the imperfect tense, indicating that she was asking or continued asking Him.

Jesus personally granted her request:

“O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour” (Matthew 15:28).​

Her daughter was physically elsewhere, but Jesus said, “Be it unto thee even as thou wilt,” and she was healed “from that very hour.”

The English word “besought” also clearly describes an earnest request. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “beseech” as:

“To entreat; to supplicate; to implore; to ask or pray with urgency.”​

Its entry for “besought” gives:

“Entreated; implored; sought by entreaty.”​

Webster defines “entreat” as “to make an earnest petition or request.” It defines “pray” as “to ask with earnestness or zeal, as for a favor, or for something desirable; to entreat; to supplicate.”

These people did not merely mention their problems in Jesus’ presence. They earnestly asked, entreated, besought, and petitioned Him for help. Jesus granted their requests.

You may point to the involvement of the Holy Ghost in Christ’s miracles. I do not deny that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost work in divine unity. However, the Holy Ghost’s participation does not erase Christ’s personal agency.

Jesus heard the requests, willed the results, issued the commands, and granted the healings:

“Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed” (Matthew 8:8).​
“So be it done unto thee” (Matthew 8:13).​
“Thy son liveth” (John 4:50).​
“Be it unto thee even as thou wilt” (Matthew 15:28).​

Most decisively, Jesus Himself said:

“I work” (John 5:17).​
“These also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19).​
“The Son quickeneth whom he will” (John 5:21).​

This brings us back to the original statement:

“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13).​
“If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14).​

John 14:12 concerns the future works believers would perform through the Holy Ghost. John 14:13–14 concerns Christ’s own response to requests made in His name. Before the cross, Jesus had already demonstrated His ability to grant requests and exercise divine authority even when the person being healed was physically elsewhere.

Therefore, John 14 does not describe an ability Jesus would first acquire after His ascension. It promises that He would exercise His already-demonstrated divine authority on behalf of believers after returning to the Father.

The believer might perform the visible work, and the Holy Ghost might work through the believer, but Jesus still expressly declares:

“That will I do.”​
“I will do it.”​

Your explanation accounts for the future ministry of believers and the Holy Ghost. It does not explain away Christ’s direct claim that He Himself would act, nor does it account for the multiple occasions before the cross when He had already done precisely that.



....
 
  • Like
Reactions: HealthAndHappiness
The title of the thread is: Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
HS kjv works for me but i do look into original languages spokenW/ no disrespect to the Greek. I actually like a lot of Greek words SoZo and where SoZo came from in deeper seek. For basic being saved and baptized in the Holy Spirit the answer is no to this thread
Once you know him that can change in a moment
 
It is not necessary, but it certainly helps in fully translating certain items such as names and places.

Our Lord is the Bread from Heaven given birth in Bethlehem which means House of Bread.

Abraham, not Abram, is the Father of nations.

The father of David is Jesse, which means My Redeemer.

David translates as Beloved.

Jesus is not the Hebrew name of our Savior. Is would be Yeshua, or Yeshi Yah, My Redeemer Yahweh.

Yahweh may be translated as I will Be what I will Be, explaining in part how if we have faith, we understand the Three Persons as God, Who is One. I say in part because we must believe this in faith, for there is no manner in which we can truly understand this, at least I never have, but I believe He is what He will be.

Last of all, Jesus was known to be a Nazar, being from Nazareth. Nazar translates as Branch, fulfilling that prophecy.

Yes, all who truly have faith understand by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is not a translation of our Lord's name, it is a transliteration from the Greek iesus, which is a transliteration from Yeshua.
 
It is not necessary, but it certainly helps in fully translating certain items such as names and places.

Our Lord is the Bread from Heaven given birth in Bethlehem which means House of Bread.

Abraham, not Abram, is the Father of nations.

The father of David is Jesse, which means My Redeemer.

David translates as Beloved.

Jesus is not the Hebrew name of our Savior. Is would be Yeshua, or Yeshi Yah, My Redeemer Yahweh.

Yahweh may be translated as I will Be what I will Be, explaining in part how if we have faith, we understand the Three Persons as God, Who is One. I say in part because we must believe this in faith, for there is no manner in which we can truly understand this, at least I never have, but I believe He is what He will be.

Last of all, Jesus was known to be a Nazar, being from Nazareth. Nazar translates as Branch, fulfilling that prophecy.

Yes, all who truly have faith understand by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is not a translation of our Lord's name, it is a transliteration from the Greek iesus, which is a transliteration from Yeshua.
I would say it is necessary to know the original languages that underlie the KJV because there are several instances I have misunderstood various uncommon KJV English words because I was reading that word with modern English eyes. This happened because I took an English-only approach. However, once I started to make Hebrew and Greek as a part of my learning the KJV, it was like I was reading the Bible in color for the first time. There are nuances of meaning in certain words in the Hebrew and Greek that is not conveyed in the English of the KJV. This does not mean that the KJV has error. I see it as a providential translation that we can fully trust. However, our understanding the KJV is going to increase by a factor 10 if you use the original languages that underlie the KJV. Granted, I would caution KJV believers to use the older lexicons, though (Pre-1700s or before 1611). The modern lexicons have become slightly tainted or corrupted for certain words. By my original language study, I have come up with various discoveries that other KJV believers have not made. I discovered that Isaiah 14:12 brings up the interpretatio Romana topic. If you don't know what that is, check out my PDF writeup titled, "Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?" at www.affectionsabove.com. I am also working on a writeup dealing with Isaiah 14:12 vs. Revelation 22:16. Its an indepth article that looks at archaeology, astronomy, historical claims, older lexicons, and more. I am very excited to finish it so I can share it with others. My findings are ground breaking in defense of the TR/KJV.


....
 
  • Heart
Reactions: JaumeJ
Your stuck in a time loop of error.
You are trying to keep the topic locked in at Galatians. In my view, that is cheating to protect your pet doctrine.
This is why I brought up Abraham and his believing the promise and how that justified him...I am not interested in debating this unless you deal with the wording of Abraham believing the promise and how that belief (not faithfulness) justified him.
I am not debating your argument, I am showing what the text says in the context of the passage, which is us living through the Spirit of Christ and His Faith being exhibited through us. That is not a pet doctrine, that is thee premise of the passage.

I addressed your issues with verse 3:6 by stating some facts and asking you a question which deals with your misunderstanding in respect to Abraham being brought up and you ignored it.

As was said verse 3:6 begins with the clause "even as". This means as you know, what is about to be said is a direct comparison to what was previously revealed about us living through Christ.

And the question that was asked stands on another fact. And that fact is verse 3:6 is not a direct quote of Gen 15:6. 15:6 says Abraham believed in God. Gal 3:6 says that Abraham believed God. There is a difference in how these two clauses are understood. Believing in God is not the same as believing God. I can believe in God and not believe God as He speaks to me.

Believing God is based on the Gift of Faith and the hearing of said Faith which is gifted to us through Christ's indwelling Spirit trying to dictate our lives.



.