Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?

[Bible_Highlighter]

If getting Proverbs 3:5-6 correct were a matter of life and death, I would absolutely study the Hebrew text, compare usages, examine lexicons, investigate historical sources, and test every interpretation I could find.

But notice what follows from that admission.

If I must compare sources, examine evidence, weigh arguments, evaluate lexicons, and test interpretations, then I am doing the very thing I've been talking about all along.
I'm examining evidence, not merely assuming the conclusion beforehand.

The question is not whether we should study deeply. We should.

The question is whether the conclusion is established before the investigation begins.

You seem to be arguing:
God perfectly preserved His words.
Therefore there must be a single perfect textual standard.
Therefore the Received Text/KJV tradition is that standard.
The point under debate is step three.

I agree God preserved His Word.
I agree Christ's words will never pass away.
I agree not one jot or tittle shall fail.

What I continue to ask is: Where does Scripture identify the specific manuscript tradition or translation that serves as that final standard?
That is the question.

You accuse me of not knowing where God's perfect words are between two covers.
I would simply observe that believers who affirm perfect preservation have disagreed for centuries about which set of words that is. The disagreement itself proves the answer is not as self-evident as you suggest.

Most importantly, I think you're creating another false dilemma: Either the KJV/Received Text is the final standard, or all we have are dead words from men.
I reject both halves of that equation.

Scripture is living and powerful because God inspired it, not because I have perfectly solved every question of textual history.
The Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, not because they already possessed a completed theory of manuscript transmission.

So I come back once again to the same point: Can the case for a particular textual tradition be demonstrated from the text, the manuscripts, and the historical evidence?
If it can, let the evidence speak.

But if the conclusion must be assumed first and every piece of evidence interpreted through that assumption, then what is being defended is not merely the text of Scripture, but a particular theory about how God must have preserved it.
That distinction is the heart of our disagreement.

Again you are arguing for a phantom text that does not exist.

I have a Bible that I can 100% trust.
You don't.

That is what is where your position is flawed to begin with.
I have demonstrated countless times of the corruptions in Modern Bibles and the Critical Text and they all sing the same tune.
They don't have the Bible.
They don't have the jots and tittles because they believe all Bibles have errors in them.
Nothing is perfect in their eyes.

Titus 1:15 (KJV):

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

You are trying to judge by a standard that does not exist.





....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

And, uh...
In another day you could have told me Paul advocated animal sacrifices.

Wake up.
Citing only negatives cannot produce the positive.

This is not really an answer to what I said.
How do you justify Unitarians being a part of the origins of the Modern Bible Movement?
What about the liberals and Catholics working on behalf of the Vatican working on the NA text?
What about that Mormon guy (Donald Parry) who worked on the OT critical text?

The TR/KJV Bible line does not have these problems.



.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Some people think you're not a true believer unless you're KJV only.

Some people like Mark Ward think it is a sin to give a KJV to a child. Ward has also stated that KJV-onlyism is a cancer.
Really? Like believing the words of the KJV in English is a cancer?
What if they understand all of those words in the KJV and they believe them and obey them?
How is that a cancer? What bad fruit would happen?
Is it not good to warn others of false translations like the NASB 95 that says teaches Arianism in John 1:18?
Would it not be good to warn other believers against the popular Modern versions that make it appear like Jesus sinned in five places?
There was even a self professing Christian I ran into who believes Jesus sinned and he used a Modern Bible to make his case.
That's where we are at right now.



.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

When I started out as a baby Christian I found the archaic English of the King James difficult to understand
and easy to misunderstand because it requires that we imagine what it is meaning..

It was before I knew about the Greek and Hebrew texts.
I actually thought it was the pastor's job to exegete the King James English so we can understand it today.

It is filled with anachronisms.

Anachronisms tied to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible generally fall into two categories: ​

translational anachronisms (where 1611 British culture was projected back into ancient times) ​

and linguistic anachronisms (where modern readers misinterpret archaic 17th-century English ​

terms through a 21st-century lens).​

It is a perfect tool for confusion.

Sorry to say...
That is why I believe Satan pushes it so hard on naive believers.

Jesus spoke in parables and said many things that were not clear. Even Paul was said that his words were hard to understand by Peter. So the clarity of the biblical text is not the issue. You should obviously know this.

As for your claim that the KJV translators employed "translational anachronisms (where 1611 British culture was projected back into ancient times)": Well, you would have to give examples of proof for this. Also, I don't see the underlying Hebrew, and Greek of the KJV as being erased even if Jacobean English anachronisms were used incorrectly to convey the original languages. You would have to demonstrate how the KJV translators made bad translation choices to what the original languages say.


.,,,

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Disagreeing while giving an explanation for the disagreement is not to "just hit the disagree button". I am noticing that when you cannot come up with a coherent and cogent rebuttal to posters comments you head for the comfort foods available to you at the logical fallacy and emotional manipulation bistro.

You seem to have invested a lot during your lifetime into promoting and defending the KJV as a Holy Spirit inspired translation. You need to sacrifice your dogmatism in that regard, or you will be stuck circling your wagons around that idol for the rest of your days, and wearing yourself into a rut that will become ever deeper, until it becomes an abysmal canyon you may never be able to think beyond.

I see the KJV as a providential translation without error, but I do not think it is 100% inspired like the original languages that underlie the KJV. The KJV is accurate in everything it says but it does not fully convey every nuance that is in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for certain words. The KJV is God's word in English for today, but knowledge of the original languages is also a necessary in my view. It will help prevent a lot of misunderstanding that my fellow KJV brethren have currently. The goal should be to believe both the KJV and its underlying original language words and to connect a bridge between them.



.....

 

[OMC]

Again you are arguing for a phantom text that does not exist.

I have a Bible that I can 100% trust.
You don't.

That is what is where your position is flawed to begin with.
I have demonstrated countless times of the corruptions in Modern Bibles and the Critical Text and they all sing the same tune.
They don't have the Bible.
They don't have the jots and tittles because they believe all Bibles have errors in them.
Nothing is perfect in their eyes.

Titus 1:15 (KJV):

"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."

You are trying to judge by a standard that does not exist.

You're still not answering the question.
You're asserting the conclusion.

You say: "I have a Bible that I can 100% trust. You don't."
But that is exactly what is under debate.

Every Christian I've ever met believes he has a Bible he can trust.
The issue is not whether Scripture is trustworthy.
The issue is whether Scripture itself identifies the Received Text/KJV as the exclusive and perfect form of that preservation.

Notice what keeps happening. When asked:
"Where does Scripture identify the specific textual standard?"
the answer becomes:
"I have it."
That is not evidence. That is an assertion.

I also reject your characterization that anyone who disagrees is left with "dead words from men."
God's Word was powerful long before the KJV existed.
The apostles preached the gospel, churches were planted, sinners were converted, and martyrs died for Christ centuries before 1611.

Furthermore, Titus 1:15 has nothing to do with identifying a perfect English translation.
Paul is speaking about moral and spiritual purity, not manuscript transmission.

My point remains unchanged:
If the Received Text/KJV is the uniquely perfect standard, demonstrate that from Scripture, history, and the evidence itself.

Appealing to God's promises of preservation is not enough.
Everyone in this discussion believes God preserved His Word.
The disagreement is over how He preserved it and whether Scripture identifies one particular manuscript tradition as the sole repository of every jot and tittle.

You keep saying I don't have a standard. That isn't true.
My standard is the inspired Word of God as preserved in the manuscript evidence we possess.
The fact that textual questions exist does not mean God's Word has failed.

In the end, I think we've reached the real point of disagreement:

I believe God's promises of preservation must be demonstrated through the evidence.
You believe a particular textual tradition must be assumed first and then used as the lens through which all evidence is interpreted.

That's not a disagreement about inspiration.
It's a disagreement about how preservation is established.

 

[PaulThomson]

I see the KJV as a providential translation without error, but I do not think it is 100% inspired like the original languages that underlie the KJV. The KJV is accurate in everything it says but it does not fully convey every nuance that is in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for certain words. The KJV is God's word in English for today, but knowledge of the original languages is also a necessary in my view. It will help prevent a lot of misunderstanding that my fellow KJV brethren have currently. The goal should be to believe both the KJV and its underlying original language words and to connect a bridge between them.



.....

Is the KJV accurately translating the Greek in this passage? Or is its translation misleading?

Jhn 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς ) me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love ( φιλῶ) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
Jhn 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς ) me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jhn 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (φιλεῖς) me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou (φιλεῖς) me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You're still not answering the question.
You're asserting the conclusion.

You say: "I have a Bible that I can 100% trust. You don't."
But that is exactly what is under debate.

Every Christian I've ever met believes he has a Bible he can trust.
The issue is not whether Scripture is trustworthy.
The issue is whether Scripture itself identifies the Received Text/KJV as the exclusive and perfect form of that preservation.

Notice what keeps happening. When asked:
"Where does Scripture identify the specific textual standard?"
the answer becomes:
"I have it."
That is not evidence. That is an assertion.

I also reject your characterization that anyone who disagrees is left with "dead words from men."
God's Word was powerful long before the KJV existed.
The apostles preached the gospel, churches were planted, sinners were converted, and martyrs died for Christ centuries before 1611.

Furthermore, Titus 1:15 has nothing to do with identifying a perfect English translation.
Paul is speaking about moral and spiritual purity, not manuscript transmission.

My point remains unchanged:
If the Received Text/KJV is the uniquely perfect standard, demonstrate that from Scripture, history, and the evidence itself.

Appealing to God's promises of preservation is not enough.
Everyone in this discussion believes God preserved His Word.
The disagreement is over how He preserved it and whether Scripture identifies one particular manuscript tradition as the sole repository of every jot and tittle.

You keep saying I don't have a standard. That isn't true.
My standard is the inspired Word of God as preserved in the manuscript evidence we possess.
The fact that textual questions exist does not mean God's Word has failed.

In the end, I think we've reached the real point of disagreement:

I believe God's promises of preservation must be demonstrated through the evidence.
You believe a particular textual tradition must be assumed first and then used as the lens through which all evidence is interpreted.

That's not a disagreement about inspiration.
It's a disagreement about how preservation is established.

Uh, we are not without our reasons for the standard we have.
In fact, that is what my 177 Reasons for the KJB writeup is all about (which is still a work in progress due to my original languages studies being added to it). Currently, I am re-working my Isaiah 14:12 explanation. It is a massive apologetic writeup with tons of source links involving archaeology, astronomy, and more. It will be like my interpretatio Romana writeup but even more in-depth.

Anyway, we have good reasons to believe the King James Bible as God's words for the English speaking people, while the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek adds the necessary precision and accuracy one needs to compliment it.

77 Reasons are Doctrinal (And that number could easily be a lot higher).
100 Reasons are Non-Doctrinal Reasons I have come up with for the KJV.


.....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Is the KJV accurately translating the Greek in this passage? Or is its translation misleading?

Jhn 21:15
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς ) me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love ( φιλῶ) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
Jhn 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (ἀγαπᾷς ) me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Jhn 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou (φιλεῖς) me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou (φιλεῖς) me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love (φιλῶ) thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I don't got time to play 20 questions or to mind read what you see as an issue. Tell me your issue, and I MAY address it. Like I said before, it is time consuming to go over the Greek. I am rather busy with various write-ups currently.



.....

 

[Genez]

I am biased towards the Bible.
Jesus talks about jots and tittles and so He obviously cared about the finer details of His own words.
Jots and tittles are marks that make up the Hebrew letters.
So if we are to be consistent with God's character here, He would provide for us today a set of His words that we can 100% trust.
If this is not the case, then one does not believe ALL of the Jesus' words.
This is what this is really about.
Yet, men want to change the word of God and say it has errors.
The Bible even says that Scripture is holy.
Do you believe that?

Amen.

 

[Genez]

This is not really an answer to what I said.
How do you justify Unitarians being a part of the origins of the Modern Bible Movement?
What about the liberals and Catholics working on behalf of the Vatican working on the NA text?
What about that Mormon guy (Donald Parry) who worked on the OT critical text?

The TR/KJV Bible line does not have these problems.

The KJV has its own set of problems.

Some major ones are anachronistic wording and archaic English that we do not think with today.
Words translated into English sometimes fail to zero in on the intended meaning and the Greek tenses.

That is not to say I am totally against the KJV.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The KJV has its own set of problems.

Claims need to be supported with examples.

Some major ones are anachronistic wording and archaic English that we do not think with today.

KJV English actually follows the Greek structure. But even if it is archaic English, it accurately reflects what the Hebrew and Greek says, the archaic wording does not make the text incorrect based on the fact that it is archaic. The Koine Greek is even older, but we do not say it is deficient because the Koine Greek is archaic compare to Modern Greek.

Words translated into English sometimes fail to zero in on the intended meaning and the Greek tenses.

I believe this is more complicated then you fully realize. It's not like you studied Greek grammar tenses in how they were used through history. Looking at such things from an overly simplistic standpoint in seeking error means you are going to find error. If you prefer to not see error, and you desire an answer, then you will get one with sources, too. See, you desire to see error and thus, that is what you will see.

That is not to say I am totally against the KJV.

1 John 5:7.
The longer ending of Mark.
Fasting to cast out demons (Note: By the way, I know this works).
Yet, your modern Bibles neuter it like a cat.
The woman caught in the act of adultery.
And more.

We have different Bibles.
Different truths.
Different doctrines.
The Modern Bible doctrines is a horror show.
Really it is merely just sloppy and bad.
Modern Bibles tell you to marry your rapist, and that Paul wished that Judiazers should cut their man parts off.
How dumb is that?!
Its so silly. The Modern Bibles are so obviously false.
But you need a correct Bible to be able to spot the fakes.
If all Bibles have errors than it's a "Pick-And-Choose-Your-Own-Adventure-Bible" show.
Paul says we are to speak the same thing. How is that possible in the Modern Bible Movement?
It is not possible.



....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Amen.

Then you are now officially TR/KJV!
Welcome to the club.



.....

 

[PaulThomson]

I don't got time to play 20 questions or to mind read what you see as an issue. Tell me your issue, and I MAY address it. Like I said before, it is time consuming to go over the Greek. I am rather busy with various write-ups currently.



.....

The KJV presents the conversation as though Jesus asked the same questions three times, and Peter gave the same affirmation three times, but was troubled that Jesus had asked him the same question three times. Is that what really happened according to the Greek?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The KJV presents the conversation as though Jesus asked the same questions three times, and Peter gave the same affirmation three times, but was troubled that Jesus had asked him the same question three times. Is that what really happened according to the Greek?

If your objection is based upon the distinction between the Greek words ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō), then I find that to be a rather weak argument against the KJV.

There are numerous examples in Scripture where these two Greek words are used interchangeably or have overlapping meanings. One does not exclusively refer to God's divine love, while the other exclusively refers to brotherly affection, friendship, or some supposedly lesser form of love.

For example, John 3:35 and John 5:20 use these two different Greek words to describe the Father's love for His Son. Likewise, John 11:3 and John 11:5 employ both words in reference to Jesus Christ's love for Lazarus. If this is the argument you are making, this is an old, weak, and silly argument that Critical Text folk who are in the know do not make anymore.

Furthermore, the Greek text of John 21:17 explicitly says that Jesus asked Peter the question "the third time" (τὸ τρίτον).

However, I am not even certain that this is the argument you are making. You have been rather mysterious about what you actually believe the KJV translators got wrong.

So, instead of having me guess at your objection, why not simply explain what you believe the Greek is saying that the KJV supposedly fails to communicate?

In other words, it's like I have to pull teeth to get answers out of you. This is not normal. Tell me your issue up front and be complete about it. No games or being mysterious. In other words, I have to guess what you have an issue with when you can simply just tell me. This is why having any kind of discussion with you is absolutely frustrating.



…..

 

[Genez]

KJV English actually follows the Greek structure. But even if it is archaic English, it accurately reflects what the Hebrew and Greek says, the archaic wording does not make the text incorrect based on the fact that it is archaic. The Koine Greek is even older, but we do not say it is deficient because the Koine Greek is archaic compare to Modern Greek.

That factor may be the case.
And, I agree about the Greek structure for some cases...

But, it does not alleviate the KJV problem with archaic language and anachronisms.

Be it as it may.

I would much rather learn the Bible being taught from the original languages being exegeted in Bible class.