Is the Greek reliable?

I did not call you a heretic. You would know, and there would be doubt if I did. See my next reply to your previous post.

Thank you for getting around to acknowledging the Biblical fact that Jesus Christ is Logos per John 1:1 It would have been good if you did that the first time I asked you about it, and it would have saved us both the grief of embarrassment. Now you can go back and answer the second part of that question, then maybe we can start over and be on a better footing of understanding one another.

 

Maybe it's not the answer you were seeking, but it was an honest answer, and written with intents of truth.

 

Your so-called hint is invalid. I nowhere appeal to John 1:1 as the source for my screenname. The Greek word logos is not used solely and exclusively for Christ. You should know that this Greek word is translated several different ways in the KJV. This word is also used for the Scriptures or the word of God (1 Pet. 1:23, 2 Pet. 1:19).

You fail to prove your implied allegation that I am supposedly using the name of Christ. Do you try to suggest that Christ was made or produced in 1560 by your allegation?

The truth is that the date/year proves that I am not referring to Christ.
The Geneva Bible was printed in 1560 so the date would clearly show to what my screenname refers (the word of God translated into English in 1560).

 

You assume and contend incorrectly and wrongly. You may jump to wrong conclusions based on your own unproven, preconceived KJV-only assumptions and premises.

I cast no doubt on the written words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and even no doubt on accurately translated words in Bible translations. You fail to prove your biased allegations against me to be true.

I believe and accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I defend the KJV as what it actually is--the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

Acknowledging the truth that errors introduced by men are not the words of God is not casting doubt on the Scriptures given by inspiration of God. God is not responsible for the errors that imperfect men (whether copiers, printers, or translators) have introduced in manuscript copies or in printed editions.

 

I am aware of your counter-arguments. I'm not going to call you "Logos", "Christ", or "Jesus". Which would you prefer that I call you; Rick or Geneva?

 

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets.

The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? It is sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do the Scriptures teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

 

Please refer to me as HH, but not as "KJV-only advocate". Your use of that term is derogatory and profane against Bible Believing Christians. I am a Bible Believing Born Again Christian purchased by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, by and because of what He did when He lay down His life on the cross at Calvary; Jesus Christ is both Lord and Saviour; He is Son of God the Father and is God the Son manifested in the flesh; He alone is Logos, The Word of God made flesh; and He is the Published Author of The Holy Bible.

You cannot prove that there are errors in The Holy Bible. You merely propaganda that there are errors with severe repitition and tricks. When you accuse Christians of being "Cult", you are in essence slandering Children of the Lord, Born Again by the Spirit of Adoption, with accusations as belonging to the Devil. And you further injure the Lord's Elect when you lump Believers in with Occult groups as I mentioned before; Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons. You dare to suggest that I do not have the proof of those accusations, I declare that I do, and I am more than willing to share that proof here, that detail behavior that is contrary to what is written in The Holy Bible befitting a Christian.

 

I have nowhere claimed that there are any errors introduced by men in the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The KJV is not actually the Holy Bible given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. You do not define your term "the Holy Bible," but it is likely that you actually mean the KJV by it. The KJV is a Bible translation and a holy Bible in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV. Do you merely assume by fallacies your opinions concerning the KJV since you do not prove them to be true and scriptural?

You fail to prove your allegations against me.

The truth is that there are actual errors introduced by men in KJV editions, and it has been proven.

At 2 Kings 24:19, the error of the name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" was left uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible in the 1611 edition of the KJV.
The fact that this error was left uncorrected for several years in KJV editions would suggest that it was the responsibility of the KJV translators. Some of the KJV translators had positions of authority over the press where they could have had such errors corrected long before 1629 if they had been aware of them and if they were the fault of the printer.

 

What you have posted, is prepared copy and paste that does no justice as to what is actually written in the passages of The Holy Bible. Taking the Scriptures out of context to purport your made-made argument of allegations is the very act of wresting the scriptures to deny the power of God to preserve His words for all generations, as He promised in The Holy Bible. It also casts doubt on the validity of The Holy Bible.

I can slap down hundreds of pages of copy and paste from the publications of the Antichrist writings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, of jehovah's Witnesses, that has made the very same repititious and vain arguments. Would you like to compare your prepared copy & paste with their prepared writings that can be copied and pasted to see how it is that your man-made arguments parallel theirs? I dare suggest that they may have a case to accuse you of plagarism.

 

Your allegations are again not proven to be true. You fail to demonstrate that my sound, scripturally-based points cast any doubt on the validity of the Holy Bible, and you fail to prove that my points wrest the Scriptures at all. I take the entire Scriptures as the context for my sound, scripturally-based points, and you fail to refute any of them. I nowhere deny the power of God to preserve His words for all generations as you falsely allege. You throw out many allegations, but that does not make them true.

It is modern, man-made, KJV-only reasoning which attempts to assume by use of fallacies and attempts to read preconceived, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions into verses that do not state nor teach them.

You have presented no positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for your opinions concerning the KJV.

 

They make safety helmets for severe cases of head banging against the wall.

 

ALL:valid Bible translations in any language are made from the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek Scriptural manuscripts. They are what GOD chose to preserve His word in, especially as they are the languages of the Israelis and Jews, the people He chose to write down and preserve His word.

So, OF COURSE they're reliable!

 

"Bang Your Head!"
-Quiet Riot

 

You intimated with no evidence whatsoever (other than your unanswered demand) that I believed Jesus is not the logos of John 1:1. That would be heresy, since the JW's and Mormons and many other anti-trinitarian groups interpret that way.

I will answer your question as soon as you answer my questions about the Japanese Bible. I have no ethical or debate responsibility to answer your demanding questions if you won't answer mine.

 

You fail to prove your bogus allegation against the accurate and clearly-defined term KJV-only. The term KJV-only accurately and soundly describes a certain teaching or belief concerning the KJV.

You do not even define and explain your terms in your posts.

Perhaps you seek to avoid clear, accurate, defined terms while using vague, undefined terms such as "the Holy Bible." By Holy Bible, you likely mean only one Bible translation--the KJV since you likely would not use the term Holy Bible for the 1560 Geneva Bible or for the NKJV. So far, you have not even admitted what you mean. Do you seek to avoid the truth that the KJV is a Bible translation or version in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV?

Your posts in this thread fail to demonstrate that what you are advocating is solely and soundly Bible belief in what is stated in the Scriptures. Bible-believing Christians who read your posts may conclude that you are advocating following non-scriptural, vain opinions, traditions, or reasoning of men instead of advocating any doctrine of God taught in the Scriptures.

Why would Bible-believing Christians object to accurate, sound terms that correctly describe a certain teaching not taught in the Scriptures?

 

Just match the bold highlights.

 

**I have found the term to be derogatory because it has been used in the derogatory sense with lumping Bible Believing Born Again Christians with Occultists. I have seen loving, tender hearted, gentle, and meek Christians seriously hurt as a result of that abuse with the denial of God's power to preserve His words for all generations.

I acknowledge that there are many Mexicans that are named Je'sus, but why throw that argument into the pot to deflect from the reality that there are and have been many people that have claimed to be Christ - λόγος - logos - log'-os

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

What do you suppose those people that followed after Jim Jones thought? "many Mexican's are named Jesus but I choose Jimmy because he has Kool-Aid and a lot of it"?

Jim Jones was not just a one hit wonder, he was one of many many people that claimed to be Christ or Logos that took multitudes of people to hell with them.

**I am going to give a further response with reference to this pointed subject on one of your other posts, with a link to this post.