Featured The Origin of Originalism

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 and would state something about language. Concerning Matthew 5:18, D. A. Waite noted: “This is a clear verse for Bible preservation of the original Hebrew text and, by extension, for the original Greek text” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information, p. 93). Steve Combs asserted: “When God made the promises of preservation, the words He promised to preserve were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words,” and he noted: “This is evident by the Scriptures themselves,” citing Matthew 5:18 (Practical Theology, p. 43). That which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet would be in the original language in which it was given by inspiration (Matt. 1:22, Matt. 2:15). 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). The actual words written by the prophet would be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31). The exact words which “the prophets and Moses did say” (Acts 26:22) would be in the same language in which they stated them. Which are the same words spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets (Acts 3:21)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound and true 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 scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah the prophet would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). 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, Luke 10:26). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). In what language were the actual words written by the hand of Moses? 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 these Scripture passages 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?

Do KJV-only advocates avoid or ignore those internal statements in the KJV that would indicate or affirm that preservation would concern the same original-language words spoken and written by the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate this scripturally-based point that Bible preservation would 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. Would the meaning of these verses have to be reduced to nothing or near nothing to try to suggest that these warnings were directly given concerning Bible translations? 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. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19).

A copy of Scripture should have the exact, same words as the source from which it was copied, and it could be tested or evaluated by its source (Exod. 34:1, Deut. 10:2, 4, Deut. 17:18, Deut. 27:8, Jer. 36:28, John 17:8, Jer. 23:28, 2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus gave the exact same words to the apostles or disciples that God the Father gave to Him (John 17:8, John 14:24, John 12:49-50). The same words or things spoken by the apostle Paul were to be committed to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2).

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? There is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since perfection by definition would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. It can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not.

 

I would still add more this Scriptures, as follow:

JESUS said to the Jews: John 5:v.43-47

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name (AN

IMPOSTOR, A FALSE MESSIAH, AN USURPER) him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for Moses wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


And more these Scriptures - Acts 3:v.22-24

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. - a sequence of confirmations -

 

You were given plenty of scripture to back up my acceptance of what the Scriptures state and teach.
My position is based on the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly identify the words given to the prophets and apostles as being what was given by inspiration of God.

You close your eyes to the scripturally-based truths that were presented as you try to avoid or dismiss the truth.

The Scriptures do not suggest that any translation made after the completion of the New Testament and after the end of the giving of new revelation from God was given by inspiration of God.
The Scriptures do not teach your modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only theory. You present no scriptures that prove your subjective, human KJV-only opinions to be scriptural. Do you advocate following the opinions and traditions of men in human KJV-only reasoning?

 

God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the one foundation and authority on which Bible translations would need to be based or built. Almighty God gave or laid the foundation on which Bible translations depend. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any later Bible translations.

No other foundation for Bible translations can be laid than the one God Himself laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3, 1 Cor. 3:11).

Puritan William Whitaker wrote: “The church is said (Eph. 2:20) to be built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, that is, upon the prophetic and apostolic doctrine; therefore the prophetic and apostolic doctrine, that is, the whole scripture, and the approbation of the same, preceded the church” (Disputation on Holy Scripture, pp. 347-348). William Whitaker added: “The foundation of the prophets and apostles in this place actually does denote the scripture” (p. 348). William Whitaker also observed that “Ambrose says that by the foundation in this place is understood the old and new Testaments” (p. 349). Again concerning Ephesians 2:20, William Whitaker asserted: “This foundation denotes the doctrine of the scriptures, promulgated by the prophets and apostles” (p. 50). Reformer Francis Turretin noted that the word of God is “the foundation upon which we are built (Eph. 2:20)” (Institutes, I, p. 55). Francis Turretin maintained that “the church is built upon the Scripture (Eph. 2:20) and borrows all authority from it” (I, p. 88). In 1684, David Dickson wrote: “The Scriptures are the foundation, upon which the church is built (Eph. 2:20) (Truth’s Victory over Error, p. 3). Concerning Ephesians 2:20 in his commentary, John MacArthur asserted: “The foundation of the apostles and prophets refers to the divine revelation that they taught, which in its written form is the New Testament” (p. 82). Concerning this same verse, the Henry Morris Study Bible noted: “The ’foundation of the apostles and prophets,’ upon which the great house must be built, clearly refers to the Scriptures which they wrote under divine inspiration. The New Testament was given ‘by revelation‘ (3:3), ‘revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit‘ (3:5)” (p. 1809). Vishal Mangalwadi wrote: “The church was ‘built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets,’ that is, on the New and Old Testaments” (Book that Made Your World, p. 397).

Scriptural truth concerning a foundation established by God would conflict with any human attempt to make a translation the final authority. KJV-only advocate Ed Moore admitted: “No one should seek to set any translation up over the majority text of the original languages” (Final Authority, p. 15).

 

Your bogus assertion would bear false witness. You invent a straw man which you attack.

That person is not at all the founder of my actual scripturally-based position. My position comes from the Scriptures, not from any man. That person was not even born when God gave the scriptural truths (that I accept) to the prophets and apostles. A man in the 1600's can not be the founder of what the Scriptures state.

In their 1611 preface, the Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged that the existing, preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

 

Your thread shows that you disobey the Scriptures as your bogus allegations and misrepresentations would bear false witness against those Bible-believers that you attack.

You show that you do not understand the Bible-believing views of those whom you attempt to smear and misrepresent by use of the fallacy of guilt by association as you try improperly to associate them with a Roman Catholic.

Use of fallacies [false arguments], use of carnal smear tactics, and use of false allegations and bogus distortions seem to be the only assertions that you can present for your non-scriptural opinions.

 

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a leading KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59).

 

You continue your bogus use of the incorrect fallacy of guilty by association. Richard Simon has nothing to do with my scripturally-based position regardless of what you may vainly and falsely allege. Your thread is a waste of time that does nothing to back up what you attempt incorrectly to allege.
It should be clear that Richard Simon was not the founder of the position advocated by the KJV translators concerning the originals since he was not even born in 1611. Some of your posts clearly make bogus, false assertions, which you have not corrected.

You were presented with far more scriptural truths from the whole counsel of God than you try to present for your following the opinions and traditions of men. You prove that you do not practice what you preach.

 

It is clear from the Scriptures that what God gave to the prophets and apostles was what was given by supernatural process of inspiration of God [the words that proceeded from the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles]. You try to dodge or dismiss the scriptural truths that have been presented.

On the other hand, you have not cited any scripture that states that after the end of the giving of the New Testament that any later translation made by imperfect men who were not prophets nor apostles would be made by a direct miracle of inspiration of God.

 

SGO, because you may choose to ignore or reject what the Scriptures state and teach does not change what they teach. You have not answered nor refuted the scriptural truths that I presented.