Featured Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO

How did you determine the proper meaning the first time you read it? Assuming you weren’t using an 1828 Webster’s dictionary to look up every common word.

 

You misunderstand. I couldn't care less about you or your "discussion style". I don't know you at all apart from what scant information might could be gleaned from reading your posts, which isn't enough to trust. My advice would benefit you but that isn't why I offer it. As I told you, you two aren't the only one's reading this thread and if the two primary participants of a discussion that multiple people are reading are both substantive and response then everyone benefits. My primary goal was to communicate to you that no one is buying your repetitious pleading about your opponent not making any actual arguments and presenting only his personal opinions. The desired effect of my doing so was to hopefully make the thread less boring for me to read.

 

Good question. I know the KJV is a translation. From what was it translated? The original language source. So what do I do? I look at the word from which it was translated. Also, I look at context. God always defines his meanings. I trust God. He says his words are faithful. I trust the KJV as being the way God wants his words to appear in English. They are spiritual words (Jn6:63). Men cannot translate the spiritual content of scripture. There is structure and design for every word.



What is the reason given most often for more translation and paraphrases in the English language? It is so men can better understand the words. Do you see a problem with that philosophy? God has said he has written his words so men can’t understand them unless they are saved and have the Spirit in them to teach them.

BTW, the Webster 1828 is not one of my go to sources.

 

I have tried to be gracious with you and I took the time to satisfy one of your complaints of going back and posting the scripture references of Logos1560 and responding to them. Now you are still complaining and I don’t get it. I think you are spoiling for a fight. I have noticed your conversations with others here such as Van and your comments became very tense toward one another and argumentative. It seems you have a critical spirit about you and you make it personal with those to whom you interact.

If my comments are boring to you just put me on ignore and will not see them I am finished responding to you until you have something to say on the topic of the op.

 

It is available with some Bible study apps as an add on dictionary.

 

The makers of the KJV indicated that they had that same translation philosophy that you inconsistently condemn except when found in the KJV.

This was the argument of the KJV translators themselves in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very common people."

 

I actuary have it on an app andI know it is very good but I rarely look at English dictionaries. I always look at the definitions of the original language words.

 

I think you missed the point. The point is that it is impossible to make the words understandable when they are designed by God himself to be understood by the spiritual man only. They cannot even be understood by a carnal man, who is defined as a saved man who walks after the flesh. The Spirit can teach a spiritual man how to connect the thoughts of God by comparing his words through scripture. This is the reason one must have the words of God. I have learned the only safe way to develop sound doctrine is by this method. One must have the very words of God. The Spirit is the teacher.

 

The only thing I'm complaining about is your insistence that someone who is making arguments right and left is being accused by you of doing nothing but posting his person opinions.

There is no reason to put you on ignore. When you blaspheme God or show up here advocating for the Flat Earth Theory or something colossally stupid like that, then perhaps, but I don't have any expectation that you'd do anything like that.

All I'm trying to get you to do is to engage the topic that you brought up and that you seem to be passionate about instead of running away from arguments that you probably don't know how to respond to effectively by calling the honesty of your opponent into question and claiming that all he's doing is presenting his personal opinions because he won't present the sort of argument that you want for him to present; an argument, by the way, that, if it existed, would undermine YOUR position as much as his.

 

Gentlemen:

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

The above is commentary on this statement which preceeded it.

Lk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

If anyone will not understand and accept the fact that the "mysteries of the kingdom of God" is this age from the cross to the "day of the LORD" there will be no possibility of sound doctrine. It is a kingdom that is being established and grown by God that is not physical nor visible to the world and the King is not physically present. He is invisible. God is ruling individuals from "the heart" and his citizens are those who have submitted to him by believing on him of their own free wills after having heard about him from other citizens of that kingdom. When this kingdom transitions from invisible to visable, then every eye shall see him and we will all who are citizens of that kingdom will know even as we are known. and there will be no room at that time for faith. God has power to raise all his citizens from the dead and glorify their bodies to be like the body of the KING. Pure and holy and without corruption.

Re 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

When is this, John?

Re 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

One must hear what the scritures says about "the seed." It must be received into the body for conception and the new birth.

That which hinders the work of the seed, according to Verse 12 of Matt 13 (one may read it again above) is false religion.

If the word can give life then it must be alive. These scriptures always says that the word of God is a living word.

1 Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Logic and reason. The life of the flesh is in the blood and it is for an offering we are told in Leviticus. Jesus Christ is the WORD. The preached gospel is the means of conception. These are one and the same in essence.

2 Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:


He 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

We must exalt the word of God for in doing so we exalt the Lord Jesus Christ. In the above KJV passage the word of God is a he and a him.

 

One cannot blame another for not being KJV only, but one can blame another for not being something only. We have no way of knowing anything spiritual if not by faith in the word of God. Moses was first to write scripture after the law was broken and that was after 3500 years of human history had already passed. Moses had to have had the words dictated to him because a lot of things were recorded by him that he could not possibly have known. Which brings me to HOW he knew these things. God is completely inept if he must keep writing new English language and paraphrased editions and still cannot get it right. Most new age Christians argue that God wants his Bible easier to understand and so he is happy with men writing new versions every day. The queers and homos even need an edition or two I have heard. But I have quoted verses where God says in the KJV that secret things belong to him and he writes in such a manner that it requires a divine teacher to make the understanding of his words possible.So, the logical conclusion, if this is true, is that translators and God have different goals in many cases concerning his words and revelation of himself and his ways, unless of course God is making a transition himself. One sure evidence of a transition is that his NT was first written in the Greek language and no one is speaking that language now and haven't for a long time. It is illogical to think that God has lost interest in inspiration for every one but the Hellenists.

There were many sinners justified in the 3500 years of time before God ever wrote a single word of Scripture.Therefore I conclude that justification for those people was not by reading or hearing scripture. It still isn't today. We have Hebrews chapter 11 that goes back to the first recorded man who was justified. It was Abel in Genesis. God said it was faith that provoked him to his obedient action of bringing a sacrifice from his flock of sheep.. Conversely, his brother Cain had faith that God would accept a sacrifice. He brought one to God. However it was rejected because his offering was not in obedience to God relative to the kind of offering he would accept. Eventually everyone on earth except Noah at the end of 1656 years followed the logic of Cain instead of Abel and only 8 people survived the awful judgement of God, the flood, that is a type of a future judgement that Jesus said was a greater judgement than this.

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

A "flood" is the result of a storm that causes the rivers to rise and spill over their banks causing damage and destruction into areas where they are not designed to occupy. In scriptures, it denotes nations that rise and cross their designated borders and usurps the govenments of other lands.

Isaiah 8:7
Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks:

All this is accompanied with thunder and lightening and excessive rain.

One other point that needs to be made before I move on. Justification is always by faith no matter in what time period anyone lives. It is always by faith is what God says particularly to you. For instance, God did not say to us today what he said to Noah. He said to Noah that there was going to be a flood and it will destroy everyone breathing air. He said to build a boat and he would be saved from the destruction by the boat. He did not say to Noah that he must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection in order to be justified, although in the providence of God that was the exact thing it took to have Noah's sins washed away and ity serves as a type for us that we may learn God's ways. Justification occurs by believing what God says to individuals and the evidence of the faith one has in God is to respond by obedience to what he says to do. Abraham is an example in Romans 4. He had physical relations with Sarah and produced the typical son, Isaac, long after the possibility of conception because God said he would have a son from his own loins.

None of us today could be justified by faith in what God said to Abraham but in what God says to us. Here is proof:

Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise (of a son) of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it (his believing God that they would have a son) was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it (righteousness) was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it (righteousness) shall be imputed, if we believe on him (God the Father) that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Now, Jesus Christ has done the work for us and we are left to do nothing, but believe in our hearts, because what Jesus did on the cross and his subsequent resurrection is our justification. All we must do is believe, but we must believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. So faith in what God says to us is the means of justifcation. Faith then is the continuing principle in all dispensations.This is the message of salvation. Today, our faithfulness to follow him is the evidence of our faith in him.

Luke 6:46
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


In a soon coming post I will tell what I think is probably the most important transition of God in his revelation of his salvation through his word that is in the scriptures. It is in Genesis.

 

God did not command or instruct believers to read only the KJV or to trust blind the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611.

Your human opinions and reasoning are not the word of God.

 

Does your inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning suggest that God was completely inept if He must keep writing new English language and paraphrased editions over and over up to 1611?

The Scriptures do not teach that God directly wrote the KJV or any other post-NT Bible translation.

Would God need to revise pre-1611 English Bibles in 1611? Would God need to borrow many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament if He was the one writing the KJV as you try to suggest?

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that God was any more involved in the making of the 1611 KJV than in the making of the 1537 Matthew's Bible, in the making of the 1560 Geneva Bible, in the making of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, or in the making of the 1982 NKJV.

Considering their acceptance of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, all the Church of England makers of the KJV may not have been genuine true believers who could be guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

Okay, what did he instruct them to do? I am guessing that you do not know.

 

You would be guessing incorrectly as you have done before with your bogus strawman distortions. Perhaps you seek to divert away from the fact that the Scriptures do not teach your KJV-only opinions.

 

I might be accused of a lot of things with many of them being true, but being an inconsistent reasonaer of the KJV is not one of them.

Okay, so you say. What does he teach?

God has no needs that I am aware of. God can use any words that he wants but he cannot lie because it would be against his character.

What about the paraphrases? And how can you say that with the absolute authority that you display saying it? If you have a word from God I am willing to hear it.

The scriptures says that holy men of God "spake" as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It does not say they wrote. So the spake first and then wrote what they said. The translators are under different rules. They are translators and not prophets. Surely you don't think they have liberty to do as they please, do you? The Bible calls itself a "faithful" word. It is not faithful words in a hundred translations and scores of paraphrases. Be logical.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now, here is a picture of the time we are living in now. I hope you will read it.

2 Ti 3:1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days (this would be the last days of the church age or it could mean the last 3 days of the 7 day week of days or it could mean both) perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.(the power of God unto salvation is the gospel Rom 1:16)
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth
.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (the faith is the fundamentals and the phrase appears 42 times in the KJV)
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

10 ¶ But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (this is a progression toward the last days)
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Tim 4:1 ¶ I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

If this is instruction for the Pastor Timothy, and by extension for all pastors throughout the church age, and if all scripture is given by inspiration of God and must be preached in order to have sound doctrine, how can anyone who is not a Greek speaker obey these instructions? This passage tells me the scriptures are inspired by God, all of it. Reason and logic tells me there must be scriptures of God and if scripture, inspired scripture.

Now if you argue it is not the KJV in English, fine. What is it?

 

Okay, you have said that hundreds of times. And I have asked hundreds of times for you to tell me what do they teach? I am not going to deny plain words in the scriptures. If you tell me what they actually teach then I will believe them. I will not accept a string of scripture references following a stated premise, without even being told what translation I should read them from, as a legitimate way to teach the scriptures. Go for it. Teach me the truth about the holy scriptures and how you are right and I am wrong and how the church is following the will of God in continuing to translate and to paraphrase English editions of the scriptures.

 

You are not being logical by presenting your bogus strawman distortions. I have not advocated nor recommended a hundred English translations and scores of paraphrases. The KJV itself is based on multiple English Bible translations (over seven) so it logically shows that the existence of more than one English Bible translation is acceptable.

Your human reason and understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 are incorrect. The assumption or assertion (likely involving the use of the fallacy of begging the question or special pleading) that the KJV has to be given by inspiration of God in order to be called scripture is not actually stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:21 teach that the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles [the holy men of God] was by inspiration of God. There is no mention of the process of post-NT Bible translating in 2 Timothy 3:16.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not state nor teach that all post-NT Bible translations are inspired or are given by inspiration of God. If the term scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 referred to Bible translations than the "all" would be asserting that all Bible translations are inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not state nor teach that inspiration is a quality or attribute that can be transferred to all post-NT Bible translations.

Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, faithful, solid, and pure? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities or properties that were not present in them? How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself? How could a revision of an earlier English Bible have any qualities or properties that were not also present in that earlier Bible translation? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration? Could the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not directly given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can any imperfection, inaccuracy, impurity, or corruption in the pre-1611 English Bibles lead to perfection, purity, or incorruption in 1611?

 

Answering sentence #1 - I do not think I am using strawman arguments.
Answering sentence #2 - I can't remember you ever speaking nay about them. Silence is consent, I have heard.
Answering sentence #2 - I don't think you can prove this, but so what? These Bibles are not the same and if God has a mathematical structure of his words, your logic fails.

This is true as far as you take it but in the same context these words are for all pastors for all time, not just Timothy and his time. Sound doctrine comes from inspired scripture, the text says. 1 Peter 1 says the word of the Lord endureth forever. But the bigger picture is that you did not honor my request. I asked you to explain what these words do mean according to you and you are back once again telling me what they don't mean.

The Bible deals with translations and when a translation is given by God it is as inspired as the original. Here is proof of that.

This is in Jerusalem;
Ac 22:1 Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Paul goes on and gives his salvation testimony in Hebrew but the words were never written in Hebrew, they were translated into Greek by the author of the Acts, Luke. The words were spoken by Paul but the Greek words that Luke wrote were words inspired of God. God can translate his words with dead on accuracy but you and your friends cannot.

Again, you are in your rut. You are telling me what the scriptures does not teach according to you and your associates but you are not telling me what they actually teach.

Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles that were not “holy,” "accurate," "correct," "good," "valid," "acceptable," "legitimate," “pure,“ or "true" Bibles according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Were all the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles fixed, faithful, solid, and pure? According to the law of non-contradiction, can the KJV have qualities which are not in common with the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision? Can the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision produce, reproduce, or transfer qualities or properties that were not present in them? How could a pre-1611 English Bible give the KJV something that it does not have itself? How could a revision of an earlier English Bible have any qualities or properties that were not also present in that earlier Bible translation? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, would not common sense dictate that for the descendant [the KJV] to retain inspiration its ancestors [the pre-1611 English Bibles] would have first had to have inspiration? Could the KJV supposedly inherit inspiration from pre-1611 English Bibles that were not directly given by inspiration of God? Can the KJV inherit perfection, purity, or incorruption from pre-1611 English Bibles that had some imperfections, impure renderings, or other faults according to a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning? Without a direct miracle of God, can any imperfection, inaccuracy, impurity, or corruption in the pre-1611 English Bibles lead to perfection, purity, or incorruption in 1611?

That is in effect my claim for the most part and I arrived at my conclusion by doing what the scriptures tells me to do, compare scripture with scripture because it is the one place where God actually communicates to us personally. We communicate with him through prayer. I do not know how you arrived at your doctrine of the Bible and it's inspiration but I do not believe you would claim it is by comparison of words in the scriptures. You have only been against an English Bible translation being inspired and perfect but you have not tried to prove your alternate position on the scriptures and inspiration.

For the reason that we are to preach the word and explain to others what to believe about God and help them understand, I must conclude God has not sent you. Your message is completely negative and condemning.

 

Your opinion is incorrect because you are ignoring or avoiding the fact that that translating was part of the process of the giving of New Testament Scripture by direct inspiration of God to the apostles and NT prophets. Therefore, it is not the same situation with post-NT translating that was not part of the giving of Scripture to the prophets and apostles as with the pre-1611 English Bibles, with the 1611 KJV, or with post-1611 English Bibles. Therefore, your comparison is invalid, and it does not prove what you suggest.

I also compare Scripture with scripture, and I do not find that results in your inconsistent, human KJV-only opinions. By affirming the truth concerning what the verses do not state and teach, it leads to what they do teach, which is not your KJV-only opinions.

The truth is consistent, and I am advocating consistent truth. I am not at all negative towards the KJV by accepting the truth concerning it. I am being positive by applying the same truth consistently and justly to the word of God translated into present-day English as in the NKJV.

It is your KJV-only opinions that could be considered completely negative and condemning toward the word of God translated into present-day English. You also seem to be completely negative and condemning towards any believer who disagrees with your opinions and private interpretations.