Featured The KJV and The Holy Spirit

The "it" in the AV refers back to what John saw, the dove.

John 1:32 (ESV)
And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.

John 1:32 (NET)
Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.

John 1:32 (NRSV)
And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him.​

Personally I prefer versions that translate the passage without a pronoun.

John 1:32 (NIV)
Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.​

Those that add "He" sound awkward.

John 1:32 (NASB 2020)
And John testified, saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.​

Rob

 

I like the CEV’s rendering too, however the focus of the passage is on Jesus, not the personhood of the Spirit. The repeated mention of the Spirit redirects one’s focus toward away from Christ.

Each Gospel was recorded by a separate witness.
As you noted, we can get a fuller picture of the event by examining many witnesses. Witness see things from various perspectives. Time, place, and view can be different.

Rob

 

Sure there is. You just wouldn't understand.

It's called translating.

Here's your justification and if you don't like it,
try to find something else to feel sorry for yourself about.

Relentlessly attacking The Holy Bible is unbecoming of anyone and sin.

But, they didn't, did they?

They translated.

They translated.

They translated.

They translated.

They translated.

They translated.

So what? That was your criteria and standard for them?

Don't get too bold, they may have just translated you as an "it", too.

They translated.

Praise the Lord.

And these verses are being used by you, for some very nefarious reason.

Who sent you?

They translated, you're saying?

There is nothing that can be determined by their translation
that is not "the correct rendering into English, from the context".

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God...

"Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought:
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us
with groanings which cannot be uttered.”

As Deacon referred to, the focus of the passage
is not the personhood of the Spirit.

The repeated mention of the Spirit as "The Spirit Himself", for example,
is entirely unnecessary and redirects one’s focus away from Christ.

Do you have a version out that Meets Your Standards,
and contains nothing but,
"the correct rendering into English, from the context"?
that we can look at?

They translated the KJV.

Do you have a version out that Meets Your Standards,
and contains nothing but,
"the correct rendering into English, from the context"?,
after you have consided all the "facts" that we can look at?

Yep. Appreciate ya. Have a nice day.

They could have gone to the movies, too.

Fine translation work, don't you agree?

Who am I to disagree?

Got any other criteria they may have used that are involved in translation?

Like, before you call them wrong.

I think you are wrong, in many ways.

Dunno what they would think of you.

Probably that you should mind your own business.

Yet again, you condescend down to Bless everyone on planet earth.

Thank you. Thanks for nothing, really, but thank you.

Here, I capitalized the Holy Spirit's pronouns, so you can try to get it,
which I haven't seen you demand and insist upon, but I'm sure you do.

Sure.

If not, WHY NOT?

"Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come,
He will guide you into all truth:

"for He shall not speak of Himself;
but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak:

and He will shew you things to come."

You know what you could do, take a clue from Him.

 

I can put together how the translators used neuter pronouns for the Holy Spirit

What I can't understand is why the KJV usually translated αγιου πνευματος as "Holy Ghost"!

Rob

 

You don't know if there is any justification
for what the translators have done, or not.

You don't know if there is any justification
for for the KJV to have used "it", or not.

#3 has typically no content.

What exactly are you so disturbed about?

I have to wonder what you would do if you had any contribution to make
to the BB, or in life. We already see your opposition to the Cause of Christ.

400+ years a non-issue, of no concern, as an irrelevant,
meaningless idiosyncrasy that has entirely acceptable linguistic propriety,
established by one of the most august and venerable masterpieces
known to mankind.

I am Pro-KJV:

ONLY SUSPECT of VERSIONS WHOS ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS'
EGREGIOUS OMISSIONS INCLUDE A TESTIMONY of SALVATION.

P-KJV-OSVWOTEOITS.

"It is no longer the Word judging you? You can now judge the Word?"

SINCE WHEN?

It takes a small man to berate, castigate, censure, chide,
and scold translators who have a testimony of salvation and/or
a home in Heaven, like a crotchety-old schoolma'am, who is afraid
that if they don't say something ridiculous, no one will notice them.

while at the same time giving those translators
who don't have a testimony of salvation that is known to mankind
that anyone has come forward with, carte blanche.

Don't you ever wonder where they are now?

There are 1,000 suspect and egregious verse aberrations resulting from them, so far.

I know that I can't help but wonder why you are on their side.

And you could care less about what they have done
and are intentionally paying them no mind?

And unimaginably awkward.

Haven't you ever asked yourself what you are doing with your life?

Your "calling in life" is to persecute Jesus?

"It is no longer the Word judging you? You can now judge the Word?"

"What is the word for disrespecting the Bible?

"A Bible desecration is the treatment of the Bible in a way
that is intended to be disrespectful or insulting.

"Bible desecration is considered to be blasphemous and sacrilegious in Christianity."

Such as your Unconditional
and Persnickety Condemnations of THE BIBLE.

1,881 Years Without the Experts.
"Until 1881, the churches had accepted one text of the New Testament,
the one "preserved by faithful churches in the majority of the manuscripts.

"Since 1881 and the Westcott and Hort text, there has not been a text accepted by all Christians.

"Since 1881 there has been controversy and confusion (which by the way, is reflected in the many modern translations all claiming to be the Word of God and all different from each other).

"Some say it is the United Bible Society’s Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word.

"Others say, no, it is the Nestle Greek text and the English translation of it that is God’s Word.

"Now it comes down to the tyranny of the experts.

"What do the scholars say?

"Each scholar says something different than the other.

"This leaves the King James Version standing like a lighthouse on the storm-swept shore, for it is the only English translation of the New Testament based entirely upon the text that has been passed on to us by faithful churches.

"It comes down to two choices: accept the text handed down by faithful churches for two thousand years or accept the findings of modern textual critics, not two of which fully agree.

"If we go with the scholars, there is no text that is accepted by all of them. Confusion reigns. There is no standard. We are left like a ship at sea without a rudder to guide it.

"Since 1881, all the critical texts of the Greek New Testament are a little shorter than the one published before it. Westcott and Hort had a few hundred variant readings.

"Metzger’s edition has three to four thousand variant readings, many of which he has deleted from the text without so much as a footnote to tell you it has been deleted.

"The modern critical texts have steadily become shorter and shorter.

"This is a clear indication that there is a “snake in the woodpile somewhere.”

The Rules of Modern Textual Criticism.
"These textual critics have rules that they follow in deciding if a word, phrase, or sentence should be allowed in or taken out of Scripture. To give you an idea of some of the rules, here is one of them:

"In general, the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be erroneous, but on more mature consideration it proves itself to be correct.

"This statement is very vague. It says “In general:” which means sometimes but not always. Who decides when the rule applies and when it does not apply? On what basis is such a decision made? We are not told.

"Then it says, “The more difficult reading.” Who decides when a reading is more difficult than another one and on what basis? Again, we are not told.

"Then the rule says, “particularly when the sense appears on the surface to be erroneous.” Who decides when this “sense” or that “sense” is “on the surface” and “erroneous?” The scholars do.

"Then it says in a question-begging statement that “on a more mature consideration it proves itself to be correct.” Who decides which consideration is the mature one? Naturally, the same self-appointed scholars do. This “rule” allows a textual critic to read the Greek New Testament variants and decide which reading is the more difficult, which sense is the surface meaning and which consideration is the mature one. Somehow, these experts get down into a “deeper knowledge” that allows them to include or exclude a verse of the Greek New Testament. Their decisions to include or exclude words and verses from the Bible are based on what the scholars think.

"It is no longer the Word judging them. They can now judge the Word."

"This is nothing more than the old first-century Gnosticism which feeds on the pride of man in his intellect and leads to the destruction of the Faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints."

"We stand on the Word of God in the King James Version, because it is the only translation in the English language that is free from the presuppositions of modern Gnosticism. There is no reason for us to move into the Gnostic camp where it is a matter of one opinion versus another opinion.

"We must not follow anyone’s opinion. If we do, we will be shifting constantly and every man doing that which is right in his own eyes-the deplorable state of modern man."

 

Tautology is often considered a fault of style in literature.

In literary criticism and rhetoric, a tautology is a word or phrase
that repeats an idea, using near-synonymous morphemes,
words or phrases, effectively "saying the same thing twice".

As you know from the KJV's The Translators to the Reader,
in "Reasons Inducing Us Not To Stand Curiously upon an Identity of Phrasing";

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way.

"Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty.

"But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader.

"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?
why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free,
use one precisely when we may use another no less fit,
as commodiously?"

The Holy Spirit’s Name is the antecedent of "itself", in reference
to His having been better known by those analogies recorded of His tasks
and duties and is just another step in the progressive revelation of scripture,
which began with *"the spirit of God", in Genesis 1:2.

Nothing could more effectually distinguish the Hebrew Narrative
of the Creation from the representations of primitive mythology than
the use of this simple and lofty expression for the mysterious,
unseen, and irresistible presence and operation of the Divine Being.

It is the “breath” of God which alone imparts light to darkness
and the principle of life..."

*Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

"The Spirit", (the Mysterious, Unseen, and Irresistible Presence
and Operation of the Divine Being,
in the Performance a Task and Duty,) "itself".

"Itself" is simply analogous to the Spirit's Effectivness, Efficacy,
and Accomplishments, or "its", if you will, assigned duties and tasks.

Also, the Holy Spirit had been commonly thought of
and had been generally taught previously in terms of analogies
referring to His impersonal tasks and duties, because
He did not come in the flesh, in Mysterious, Unseen, and Irresistible Presence and Operation of the Divine Being,
in His Anointing, itself, and His SHEKINAH GLORY, itself, etc.

No one doubts that Jesus was a Person or that He had
a corporeal body on earth. The most obvious physical manifestation
we see of the Holy Spirit is when He descended as a dove upon Jesus
at His baptism (see Mark 1:10), and as tongues of fire
on the Day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:3).

Or, i.e., The Holy Spirit is depicted as a "dove", itself,
and "tongues of fire", itself.

And, of course, in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit is identified
with the pillar of cloud and fire (itself) through which
he Lord guided the Israelites at the Exodus
and in the wilderness wanderings
(see Exod. 13:21; 19:16-19; Isa. 63:11-14; Heb. 12:29).

Ezekiel shows the Spirit of God manifesting Himself in glory,
radiance and fire (itself) (see Ezek. 1:27-2:2).

Also, Paul identifies the Spirit of the Lord as the source of the glory
and radiance (itself) seen on Moses’ face after he had entered
the Lord’s presence in the cloud covering Sinai (itself)
(see Exod. 19:9; Deut. 31:15; Ps. 99:6,7; 2 Cor. 3:17,18).

These figures of speech and analogies should not be taken
as denials of the Personality of the Holy Spirit,
but rather as descriptions that picture His influence,
His duties, tasks, and accomplishments.

Impersonally, these pictures of the Holy Spirit could be seen as;

The Anointing, itself (1 John 2:27), My Blessing, itself (Isa. 44:3), The Earnest of our Inheritance, itself, the Dew, itself, the Doorkeeper, itself, a Dove, itself (Mark 1:10), an Enduement of Power, itself, (Luke 24:49, implied) the Finger of God, itself, Fire, itself, Fountain, itself, the Guarantee, itself, the Oil, itself, Rain, itself, Rivers, itself, Water, itself (Isa. 44:3), and The Wind, itself (John 3:8), etc.

Each of these names were ascribed to the Holy Spirit in Scripture
in a specific context and could naturally and normally have had, "itself",
rendered with it, as a harmless common vernacular
and yet highly descriptive colloquial reiteration,
fully within the translators' prerogative and purview.

con't

 

To this list, some Bible teachers would also add these expressions
to which the addition of "itself" would have been Biblically opportune
causing no injury to the narrative and revelation of God the Spirit;

O Breath (Ezek. 37:9) The Breath of the Almighty (Job 33:4) The Breath of God (Job 27:3) The Breath of Life (Rev. 11:11) The Breath of the LORD (Isa. 40:7) The Breath of Your Nostrils (Ps. 18:15) A Deposit (2 Cor. 1:22) Like the Dew to Israel (Hos. 14:5) A Different Spirit (Num. 14:24) Divided Tongues, as of Fire (Acts 2:3) The Doorkeeper (John 10:3; New English Bible, cf. Acts 16:14) The Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) An Excellent Spirit (Dan. 5:12) The Finger of God (Luke 11:20) Floods on the Dry Ground (Isa. 44:3) A Fountain of Water (John 4:14) The Fullness of God (Eph. 3:19) Your Generous Spirit (Ps. 51:12) The Gatekeeper (John 10:3, RST) The Gift of God (John 4:10; Acts 8:20) The Gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) The Glory of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:18) Your Good Spirit (Neh. 9:20) The Guarantee of Our Inheritance (Eph. 1:14; cf. 2 Cor. 5:5) The Hand of God (2 Chron. 30:12) The Hand of the LORD (Job 12:9; Isa. 41:20) The Hand of the Lord GOD (Ezek. 8:1) The Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13) His Holy Spirit (Isa. 63:10) Your Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11) The Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 4:30) The Holy Spirit of Promise (Eph. 1:13) The Holy Spirit Sent from Heaven (1 Pet. 1:12) A Mighty Voice (Ps. 68:33) A New Spirit (Ezek. 11:19) The Oil of Gladness (Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:9) One Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:18; 4:4) The Power of the Highest (Luke 1:35) The Promise (Acts 2:39) The Promise of My Father (Luke 24:49) The Promise of the Father (Acts 1:4) The Promise of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33) The Promise of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14) Rain upon Mown Grass (Ps. 72:6) Rivers of Living Water (John 7:38) The Same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4,8,9,11) The Same Spirit of Faith (2 Cor. 4:13) His Seal (john 6:27; 2 Tim. 2:19) The Seal of God (Rev. 9:4) The Seal of the Living God (Rev. 7:2) His Seed (1 John 3:9) Seven Eyes (Zech. 3:9; 4:10; Rev. 5:6) Seven Horns (Rev. 5:6) Seven Lamps of Fire Burning Before the Throne (Rev. 4:5) The Seven Spirits Who Are Before His Throne (Rev. 1:4) The Seven Spirits of God (Rev. 3:1; 4:5) The Seven Spirits of God Sent Out into All the Earth (Rev. 5:6) Showers that Water the Earth (Ps. 72:6) A Sound from Heaven, as of a Rushing Mighty Wind (Acts 2:2) The Spirit (Num. 27:18) His Spirit (Num. 11:29) My, Spirit (Gen. 6:3) Your Spirit (Ps. 104:30) The Spirit of... Adoption (Rom. 8:15) Burning (Isa. 4:4) Counsel (Isa. 11:2) Deep Sleep (Isa. 29:10) Elijah (2 Kings 2:15; Luke 1:17) The Fear of the LORD (Isa. 11:2) Glory (1 Pet. 4:14) Grace (Zech. 12:10; Heb. 10:29) Holiness (Rom. 1:4) Judgment (Isa. 4:4) Knowledge (Isa. 11:2) Life (Rom. 8:2) Love (2 Tim. 1:7) Might (Isa. 11:2) Power (2 Tim. 1:7) Prophecy (Rev. 19:10) The Prophets (1 Cor. 14:32) Revelation (Eph. 1:17) A Sound Mind (2 Tim. 1:7) Stupor (Rom. 11:8) Supplication (Zech. 12:10) Truth (John 14:17) Understanding (Isa. 11:2) My Understanding (Job 20:3) Wisdom (Exod. 28:3; Deut. 34:9) The Spirit Whom He Has Given Us (1 John 3:24) A Steadfast Spirit (Ps. 51:10) The Voice of the Almighty (Ezek. 1:24) The Voice of the LORD (Ps. 29:3,4,5,7,8,9) His Voice (Ps. 95:7; Heb. 3:7) His Voice (Most High-Ps. 18:13) The Voice of Your Thunder (Ps. 77:18) My Witness (Job 16:19; cf. Heb. 10:15).

 

#3 Jesus Christ THE FIRST and THE LAST

 

Not only can a person of either gender be referred to as "it", in our current common everyday language, i.e., "is it her?", or "is it him?",
"All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20 the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Notice the angel does not say "he", but "that which",: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35 the angel says to Mary "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.

"The book of I John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: "WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world." This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?"
https://english.stackexchange.com/a/571380

" I want to know the basis of this popular assumption among the translators that in English, a personal noun has to have a gendered pronoun. Is their assumption linguistically accurate? Do we have historical references of pronouns used for the Spirit or Ghost?

"For reference, I know of the common gender nouns which have the neuter pronoun, and Spirit or Ghost should count under it. Formal gender is the linguistic gender which has nothing to do with biological gender. English tends to follow natural gender, and has no formal gender.

"Some definitions:

• "Grammatical (formal gender) vs. natural gender The natural gender of a noun, pronoun or noun phrase is a gender to which it would be expected to belong based on relevant attributes of its referent. Although grammatical gender can coincide with natural gender, it need not.
  
  
• "common gender: (linguistics) A grammatical gender in some languages, formed by the historical merging of masculine and feminine genders. (grammar) In some languages (e.g. Latin, Lithuanian), a gender applied to a noun that can be either masculine or feminine.Which pronoun is used for Spirit or Ghost and is there a rule that says we must use certain pronoun for the Spirit? Is it a common gender noun?

"A distinction must be made here.

"When we refer to the Holy Spirit as one Person (or Hypostasis, as the Greek theologians call it) of the Holy Trinity, then the English language uses the gendered personal pronoun HE:

"KJV John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."

"However, the Spirit of God's force, from God the Holy Spirit, can mean the grace/energy/power of God, in which case the pronoun used is IT:

"KJV Numbers 11:17 And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them."
or
"KJV John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."

"As for the gender of the Holy Spirit, Wikipedia says

"The grammatical gender of the word for "spirit" is feminine in Hebrew (רוּחַ, rūaḥ), neuter in Greek (πνεῦμα, pneûma) and masculine in Latin (spiritus). The neuter Greek πνεῦμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew רוּחַ. The pronouns used to address the Holy Spirit, however, are masculine.

*Even in the same language, a difference may arise relating to what word is chosen to describe the Holy Spirit. In Greek the word pneuma is grammatically neuter and so, in that language, the pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit under that name is also grammatically neuter. However, when the Holy Spirit is referred to by the grammatically masculine word Parakletos "counselor/comforter", the pronoun is masculine (since the pronoun refers to Parakletos rather than pneuma), as in John 16:7-8.

"Most English translations of the New Testament refer to the Holy Spirit as masculine in a number of places where the masculine Greek word "Paraclete" occurs, for "Comforter", most clearly in the Gospel of John, chapters 14 to 16. These texts were particularly significant when Christians were debating whether the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit is a fully divine hypostasis, as opposed to a created force."

One very important note, however, is that the pronoun of neuter gender in Greek does not deny the noun it replaces the possibility of being a human person, or the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person within the Trice Holy Godhead, whereas in English the disparity between the uses of "it" as referring to non-human entities and human ones is much greater.

For a look at John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26 and I Peter 1:1, see:
"Romans 8:16 KJV The Spirit itself
beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God"

 

You choose to follow the opinions of men [at least your own human opinions] concerning the KJV. You fail to prove all your opinions to be true and scriptural. There is plenty of pride of man evident in unproven exclusive only claims for the KJV. Perhaps you bear false witness against the translators of the NKJV with your unproven accusations.

Your own exclusive only claim for the KJV demonstrates that you hold and advocate a KJV-only view.

You don't know if there is any sound justification for all the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of biased, doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. You may assume since you do not prove.

 

Common sense will do it.

The KJV is God's Holy Bible He promised to preserve.

It is a faithful translation from complete and sufficient source texts, as are others and those of different languages, just as there is an enormous proliferation of those that are not, as you very well know.

You interest in questioning the Authority and Infallibility of the KJB on a pronoun you don't even know enough about to misinterpret it is telling.

That's all you have to make an attempt to bolster incomplete and wholly insufficient miscues at the translation game.

That and putting any normal reader of the revealed Word of God, in the linage of those that still held to the Doctrines of Miraculous Divine Inspiration and the Supernatural Superintendence in Providential Preservation, as well as Contending for the Faith once delivered to the saints, into your own little private pigeonhole of being KJV-only, because

A.) they more helpless and vulnerable in their indefensible braggadocio then fish in a barrel

and B.) as nothing but a merciless big bully that can only handle that level of a contest, you NEED everyone that didn't follow those who abandoned the Doctrines of Miraculous Divine Inspiration and the Supernatural Superintendence in Providential Preservation, as well as Departing from Contending the Faith once delivered to the saints, to be labeled Peter Ruckmanites nutcases,

because unless you can place your full dependence on painting regular Bible believers as having some "exclusive only claim for the KJV" that you then conclude "demonstrates that you hold and advocate a KJV-only view", you're just a fish out of water.

Oh. Here it is right here;

I didn't prove "sound justification for all the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of biased, doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611"?

I think I did.

I touched every base imaginable, perfectly, to a fault and even proved more things than I was required to, to satisfy every last strategic criteria, in this scenario, equal to that of the Bible translators with a salvation testimony, like those of the KJB.

All it takes is to be literate in your mother tongue.

No. There is nothing wrong with the translation of "pneuma" in Roman 8:26, or with the other cases where there is this panicked frenzy of translation desperation, after more than 400 years of peace and harmony about it.

And just exactly why do you think that is, just because the KJB is a vastly superior record that even includes all of God's Word that He has revealed, as opposed to the influx of hundreds of abridgements which do not.

Their only hope is to tear down The Holy Bible. And THEY NEED YOU, LOGOS!

Because it's been tried for a few centuries already, without much success.

Now class, the refutation of this popular though feeble charge against the integrity of the Bible comes from three sources.

First, the Greek language itself, secondly, the hypocrisy of Bible critics and thirdly, from Jesus Christ Himself. (Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, His testimony should hold considerable influence.)

First, the word translated "itself" in Romans 8:26 is "autos", which refers to "pneuma", which means "spirit." (Since the "spirit" is like air (Genesis 1:7, John 3:8) we use the word "pneumatic" to describe things that are air operated.)

In Greek every word has its own distinct gender, masculine, feminine or neuter.

Masculine gender is denoted by the article "o," feminine by "a," and neuter by "to."

The word for spirit, "pneuma" is neuter, a fact which is known to even first year Greek language students.

Thus, the King James Bible correctly translates pneuma "itself" because it would be grammatically incorrect to translate it "himself" as many of today's inferior translations do.

Since critics of the King James Bible like to deride it for pretended "mistranslations" of the Greek, it seems hypocritical indeed to criticize it here for properly translating the Greek.

Then to add insult to ignorance they laud other versions such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, and New King James Version which INCORRECTLY render pneuma as "himself."

Secondly, in adding to their hypocrisy and exposing their disdain for God's Bible, these same critics, who become indignant at the Holy Spirit being called "it" in Romans 8 in a King James Bible, will promote translations such the New American Standard Version and the New International Version which call God a "What " in Acts 17:23.

The Authorized Version correctly renders it "Whom."

Thirdly, and most convincingly, is a statement that Jesus Christ makes in John chapter 4 while dealing with the woman at the well.

Jesus, completely unintimidated by twentieth century scholarship, doesn't hesitate to say to the woman in verse 22,

"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews."

To whom is Jesus referring to by the word "what?"

The next verse defines His statement perfectly.

"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth:
for the Father seeketh such to worship Him."

Thus we see that Jesus finds referring
to His own Father as "what" in verse 22 a non-issue.

While the mighty mice of twentieth century scholarship would translate an entirely new version over it. Even though they, in their own casual conversation, find no offense in referring to the Holy Spirit in the neuter.

Which will you follow'?

Oh, and btw. Did either of you two ever come up with any significance in the association between the words, "Vaticanus", and "Vatican"?

I thought. As long as you're delving into things. Why not?

 

You are trying to put words in the mouth of God that He did not say. God does not say that the KJV is "God's Holy Bible He promised to preserve." Your inconsistent, human, non-scriptural opinion is not common sense.

Here is some common sense. A Bible translation does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged and without any additions of men and without any omissions. Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

According to what the Scriptures state and according to the definition of preservation, would not a consistent, sound, scriptural view of Bible preservation be true both before and after 1611?

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by moving 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.

 

That's called, "translation", Logos1560! I think you hit the jackpot.

You're onto something there, for sure.

BINGO NIGHT!!

Did someone say they did?

Then, why do you not approve of The KJB, in any of the given instances
(the entire volume) where the KJV translators' text, "does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged,
(TO PRODUCE A LITERAL WORD-FOR-WORD KJB TRANSLATION)
"and without any additions of men and without any omissions..."?

Did someone say they did?

Then, why do you not approve of The KJB, in any of the given instances
(the entire volume) where in the KJV translators' text, you have discovered, "Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same
(TO PRODUCE A LITERAL WORD-FOR-WORD KJB TRANSLATION)
in Bible translations"?

What I tried to do, was write a normal harmless sentence
that wouldn't invoke your rubber stamp censor on it
the way every other posting I've ever made has, with your announcement:
"Your inconsistent, human, non-scriptural opinion is not common sense."

And, there we have, what I tried to do.

"God".."promised to preserve" His "Holy Bible"/ called "the book".

The KJV is "God's Holy Bible" / book. Has been for over 400 years, btw.

That's the plan. Get with the program.

The KJV is "God's Holy Bible He promised to preserve."

CAN'T DENY IT. PLANE AS THE NOSE ON YOUR FACE.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO STOP TRYING.

"According to what the Scriptures state and according
to the definition of preservation", .... "a consistent, sound,
scriptural view of Bible preservation"..."both before and after 1611",
has found, or would find, the translators entirely embracing:

While, conversely, the end product of:

could not be considered to have resulted,
"According to what the Scriptures state and according
to the definition of preservation", .... "a consistent, sound,
scriptural view of Bible preservation"..."both before and after 1611."

Thanks for asking.

O.K., I don't understand that sentence, but O.K.

(Is it a sentence?)

“the things that are written by the prophets” +

"the actual words directly written by the prophets" =

"which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets"?

Or, what?

That's all cool. Seems a little obvious, but that's just fine.

The prophets wrote in their own language.

That makes sense, in a way, I guess.

"the Jews language", "the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets", "would state something about language."

Is that also supposed to be going to say something?

"the Jews language" +

"the particular original language", =

"would state something about language"?

That's quite a heavy statement, man.

Dunno if I get it, but it's definitely a downright heavy thing to say.

 

Your assertion or accusation is not true.

I do not put the normal believer and reader who believes and holds the doctrine of the miraculous divine inspiration of Scripture, who accepts the supernatural superintendence in providential preservation, and who contends for the faith once delivered to the saints into a "private pigeonhole of being KJV-only" since I hold those three concepts and I am not KJV-only.

The faith once delivered to the saints did not and does not include your exclusive only claims for the KJV.

I believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves, and what the Scriptures teach does not lead to your human, non-scriptural claims concerning the KJV.

You have not at all proven your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions to be true and scriptural.