Featured KJVO question

...and "twaddle".

"Taint so" and "twaddle".

Tweedle dee and tweedle dum...

 

Yet another off topic vicious vilification of a messenger of Truth. This is all they have, shoot the messenger and change the subject. Their posts of empty, never addressing the text that demonstrates Calvinism is bogus. They say no one is able to repent, but Jesus says people would repent. They say no one ever seeks God, but numerous verses state the lost sought God.

Pay no attention to all these personal attacks, and read your bibles. Calvinism is false doctrine.

 

The reason the NT was written in Greek is because the people of God, Israel, rejected the Messiah and his word when he came to them. Therefore, as his chastening he spoke to them in other languages, other than Hebrew as a sign of his judgement on them. The NT then was written in Greek, a gentile language and in the providence of God the Jews and Israel were cut off from their kingdom message and that generation of Jewish rulers were under the anathema of God and he would not save them. He set a 40 year probationary time frame upon Israel during which all those who refused to enter his kingdom by faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God and Messiah of Israel would die and those who survived to the end (the end he speaks about in the epistle to the Hebrews) would be killed by the Roman army in AD 70, a period of exactly 40 years. You should read Hebrews 3 here. The set up for this was the wilderness wandering for 40 years under Moses, a type of Jesus Christ leading to the promised land and into rest.

Here is a prophecy of this time frame.

Lu 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain [man] had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung [it]:
9 And if it bear fruit, [well]: and if not, [then] after that thou shalt cut it down.

The fig tree in the KJV is a metaphor for national Israel and the vineyard is a metaphor for the land of Judah. (see Isa 5). We know it was cut down and removed nationally in AD 70 and over a million Jews perished in Jerusalem during the awful siege of the Romans. The nations became their graveyard because separation is the meaning of death and burial is what one does to a dead body.

Because the Jews were no longer in their land and under the government of God but under the gentile government of the nations to which they went, God dealt with them in the same way as he dealt with gentiles and the church from that time forward took on a strictly gentile character. Jesus, the Jewish savior and the church his gentile bride. The metaphors in the OT times were the 8 gentile women who married men in the line of Abraham, beginning with Isaac's bride, Rebekah.

So now we have a gentile church and brand new revelations of the mysteries that God had hidden in the OT types, some of which I have mentioned above, and he spoke to his bride in gentile tongues. One would be hard pressed to find many references to the OT as he preached to gentiles in their languages because they had no history or understanding of OT promises to Israel. Therefore, the gentiles can be saved without the Hebrew OT because the gospel is brand new truth for us. We can begin our journey in the first book of the bible that appears in a gentile language, Matthew, and we can be saved. However, we cannot be saved today by the Greek language because no one speaks it anymore and no one can understand it. If evangelism of the world was dependent upon the Greek speakers, the world would be almost totally dark today.

God, in his providence and for the sake of his son, who died for sinners and rose again from the dead, gave his word to the world in the language of the people who would preach it. In the years of the apostle Paul, sometimes in the sixties, AD, when he was in a Roman prison, it was probably in Latin and Greek, because the few believing Jews that came for an audience with Paul in his hired house in Acts 28 and from that point were forever divided into the believers and unbelievers. Dead sure the unbelievers would not preach Jesus Christ but would spend their efforts convincing other Jews not to believe in Jesus as the Christ and redeemer of Israel. About the time of 1611 God made a pivot and prepared his word in English because he knew they would believe it and preach it to other even to the point of learning the languages of other nations in order to take this blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to them.

Ac 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the (Jewish) people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

18 Who, when they had examined me, would have let [me] go, because there was no cause of death in me.
19 But when the Jews spake against [it], I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see [you], and to speak with [you]: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it.

Dead sure the gentiles would not hear it in the Hebrew language and gentiles today will not hear it in the Greek language. If the Hebrew nation would have believed in Jesus then the NT would have been written in Hebrew and translated into the languages of the nations and the world would look much different today.

 

Or rather Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan spreading the Greek language and culture everywhere. That may have been one reason the New Testament was written in Greek, as well as the first language the Old Testament was translated into 3rd/2nd century BC.

 

That went by the point. No one is debating that.

 

The point is that God pivoted away from his chosen language of Hebrews, through whom he would save the world. He went to the gentiles, because Paul, the chosen of God to take the gospel to gentiles said they will hear it. The language of the world at that time was Greek and many millions were saved but the Greek language began to fade and God had plans to establish an environment to send gospel preachers all over the world and he established America and made it free and open and began to deal with the unsaved world through the English speakers and he prepared his bible in the English KJV for the task. It makes perfect sense that if saving faith comes by hearing the gospel of Christ he needs someone who will preach it. How many Greek missionaries were there in 1611?

God is invested enough in the salvation of souls to send his own son to pay their sin debt by punishing him as a substitute and he wants to save as many as is possible and some of you guys seem to think he can't, or will not, provide an authority for the commission of these preachers and instruction for them in their own language. God pivoted in 1611 and put the trinitarian signature on languages with which he has dealt with men. Hebrew, Greek, and English. This is one of the ways of God. He stamps all his work with the trinitarian signature. There is an adversary who knows this and the best he can do is to pollute it down with additions and spin offs.

Some of you fellows do not know God very well if your actions and words are any indication.

 

Your human opinion concerning 1611 is not taught in the Scriptures.

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

 

My understanding of the ways of God are taught in the scriptures and that is why I reject your counsel. I know he has not hidden his words and the knowledge of himself in dead languages and that he wants his church to know the deep things of God.

 

The ways of God are taught in the Scriptures, but human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning and opinions are not.

I have nowhere claimed that God hid His words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The preserved words of God can be and should be translated into other languages, but the actual words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of those translations.

Do you try to ignore or dodge the fact that the word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611?

 

So called translations that vary in the number of words by as many as 65,000 and are dynamic equivalences and paraphrases are not real translations. This causes me to ask you whose leg are you trying to pull?

 

You do not discuss, answer, nor refute my actual statements. Instead you use the bogus tactic of trying to misrepresent what I believe or distort it into something that I do not believe nor state.

You evidently will accept dynamic equivalent renderings or paraphrased renderings in the KJV so you do not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

 

No, you are wrong. One can look at several quotes of OT scriptures in the NT scriptures and see that they are not word for word. You can call those instances paraphrasing but I wouldn't. They are translations from one language to another, and they are inspired. God alone can do that because it is his word and he knows what he wants to say in any language. The reason Psalms 119 says every word of God is pure is because of it's seven-fold structure, I believe.

1) Law - V 1
2) Testimonies - V 2
3) Ways - V 3
4) Precepts - V 4
5) Statutes -V 5
6) Commandments - V 6
7) Judgements - V7

1 ALEPH. Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
2 Blessed [are] they that keep his testimonies, [and that] seek him with the whole heart.
3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
4 Thou hast commanded [us] to keep thy precepts diligently.
5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.

This structure appears over and over through the whole Hebrew alphabet.

I think this psalm is prophetic and gives us the thoughts of our Lord Jesus when he was on the earth in the flesh. If so, he thought the words were very pure and the first 5 books of that word had been written 1500 years prior to his coming. Therefore I think we have God's evaluation of the preservation of his own words. Keeping all instances of God's word is the evidence of a sinless life.


Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

 

You make an invalid comparison or jump to a wrong conclusion. The translating of any OT verses into Greek in the NT was part of the process of the giving of the New Testament by inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets; therefore, of course, they were inspired. That is not at all the same as post-NT translating by men who were not apostles and prophets and were not given words by a miracle of direct inspiration. Because God the giver and author may have made changes and added in giving the New Testament does not mean that uninspired Church of England critics in 1611 were permitted to do the same thing.

You keep forgetting or avoiding the fact that the Scriptures were translated into English many years before 1611. William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and the translators of the Bishops' Bible had available the same guiding of the Holy Spirit that would have been available to the Church of England makers of the KJV if they were true believers. Several of the pre-1611 English Bible translators were more godly men and more sound in doctrine than the later KJV translators who believed some unsound doctrine such as baptismal regeneration, who persecuted professed believers for their beliefs, and who may not have been saved if they were trusting their baptism as their means of salvation. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that the pre-1611 English Bible translators were more likely guided by the Holy Spirit than the ungodly KJV translators. Several of the KJV translators were directly involved in ungodly persecution of professed believers even to the point of having two men burned at the stake.

You do not make the same claims for the pre-1611 English Bible that you thus inconsistently and unjustly attempt to make only for the 1611 KJV. The wisdom from God above is without partiality while your human KJV-only "wisdom" is with partiality towards an exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611. The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

 

While I may not recommended nor advocated the Critical Text nor any English translations made from it, I do not blindly accept KJV-only claims concerning it. Have you personally collated and compared them and counted the claimed "65,000" variations or are you blindly repeating a KJV-only claim that you have not checked out?

You also do not identify and list what is supposedly being counted as variations. Someone could have counted changing the archaic verb endings ["eth", etc.] as variations when the same word may have been used in present-day English, and they may have counted changing the archaic pronouns such as "ye" to "you".

 

My understanding is that there are roughly 400000 variants in the NT, and less then 1 percent involve actual word changes of a significant degree, and NONE of them affect changing doctrines or theology

 

The only really significant differences at the end of the day are the end of Mark's Gospel and the Woman Caught in Adultery and we know neither of those are original.

 

This is opinion and nothing more. Peter, in 1 Peter 1 of his epistle tells us the word of the Lord endureth forever. This is the title in both testaments of a person. That person is Jesus Christ. Have you ever considered the next sentence in that verse? Read it; "And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

Now here is the verse in the Geneva Bible and if this is the only place the Geneva got it wrong it would be enough to forsake it

25 But the word of the Lord endureth forever: and this is the word which is preached among you.

These two bibles do not say the same things in this context of 1 Peter 1. It would be unlikely that one would ever understand from the Geneva bible that the "word of the Lord" is referencing the person of Jesus Christ and the word of God in the context is referencing the written word.

The Anglicans neither promote the KJV or defend their strange doctrines from it. The Anglican church did not translate the KJV. There is nothing in the KJV that would support baptismal regeneration but that cannot be said about MVs.

No one but you is teaching that the word of God is bound by or in the KJV, whatever you mean by it. The word of God is preserved in it.