KJV Onlyest 1611 Psalm 12:7 note, question.

[David Lamb]

Phooey on this argument. Some of the Jewish customs , like the wedding ceremony, is harder to grasp than what you refer to as an archaic word. Who, besides maybe the NIV people , have tried to make that easy to be understood. He calls the NT church with it's unique doctrines, mysteries. Peter, an apostle, who was not taught these mysteries as Paul was, said these words;

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1Co 4:1 ¶ Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

God has nowhere said he has for a goal of making his Bible easy to understand.

You say that some Jewish customs are harder to grasp than some archaic words. I disagree, particularly in regard to words which still exist today, but with a totally different meaning to the way they are used in the KJV. Just two examples. "Carriages" today are wheeled vehicles. Not in the KJV, where it means luggage or equipment:

Isa 10:28 He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:

"Prevent" today means to stop something happening. Not in the KJV, where it means to go before:

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Such words can present a problem, because, as they are still in regular use today, the reader will not see the need to look up their meaning. What is wrong with using words like "equipment" (rather than "carriages") and "precede" (rather than "prevent")? It saves confusion, and makes no difference to the doctrine being taught.

 

[Logos1560]

According to what scholar?

The guiding of the Holy Spirit was just as available to the believers who made the NKJV as to the Church of England makers of the KJV.

Not according to scholars. According to what the Scriptures themselves teach concerning the indwelling and guiding of all believers by the Holy Spirit. The wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:16).

 

[Logos1560]

2 Peter 3:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


God has nowhere said he has for a goal of making his Bible easy to understand.

Peter did not say that God wanted His words to be kept in archaic language hard to be understood. Instead of referring to words hard to be understood, perhaps some doctrines of God are the things referred to as hard to be understood.

"And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8). "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). “They [the words] are all plain to him that understandeth” (Prov. 8:9).

 

[JD731]

You say that some Jewish customs are harder to grasp than some archaic words. I disagree, particularly in regard to words which still exist today, but with a totally different meaning to the way they are used in the KJV. Just two examples. "Carriages" today are wheeled vehicles. Not in the KJV, where it means luggage or equipment:

Isa 10:28 He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:

"Prevent" today means to stop something happening. Not in the KJV, where it means to go before:

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Such words can present a problem, because, as they are still in regular use today, the reader will not see the need to look up their meaning. What is wrong with using words like "equipment" (rather than "carriages") and "precede" (rather than "prevent")? It saves confusion, and makes no difference to the doctrine being taught.

You figured out what the word "prevent" means. Why are you so sure lesser ones cannot?

 

[David Lamb]

You figured out what the word "prevent" means. Why are you so sure lesser ones cannot?

Only by looking up in a concordance the meaning of the Hebrew word used. Before that, I imagined it meant to stop something happening. I looked it up because I couldn't get our usual meaning of "prevent" to make sense in the verses where it occurs in the KJV. Incidentally, another example of the same sort of thing is "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. The Greek word occurs 28 times in the New Testament, and in 27 of those times it is translated in the KJV as "knowledge" which is what the Greek word "gnosis" means. It doesn't mean science in the sense of physics, chemistry and biology, but all knowledge.

 

[JD731]

Only by looking up in a concordance the meaning of the Hebrew word used. Before that, I imagined it meant to stop something happening. I looked it up because I couldn't get our usual meaning of "prevent" to make sense in the verses where it occurs in the KJV. Incidentally, another example of the same sort of thing is "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. The Greek word occurs 28 times in the New Testament, and in 27 of those times it is translated in the KJV as "knowledge" which is what the Greek word "gnosis" means. It doesn't mean science in the sense of physics, chemistry and biology, but all knowledge.

Listen guy, your argument is not making sense to me. If you do not believe your translated Bible is inspired then you must look up every word in a concordance to learn what God really said and to check if your translation is reliable. Otherwise you never really read the word of God. You guys, in trying to be the smartest persons in the room, often present yourselves as NOT.

I am a KJV only believer. It is not because I believe there is no value in the study of the words from which the KJV is translated. I sometimes post the Bible word and the meaning of it. There are passages in the scripture that would be very difficult to understand and be sound in ones doctrine unless he studied this way. The Greek words Kartegao and Pauo is an example in 1 Corinthians 13 that comes to mind in determining the meaning of the "perfect thing" in that discussion. It is difficult to be convinced by the English alone. Read your commentaries and see how many of them do not understand that.

The point is, now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments, then I think you are foolish. Blindly following men without proving them is not good. I have spent a lifetime proving the KJV and at the end of my life I am more convinced than ever that it is the word of God. The comparison with the original language words has helped greatly in arriving at my conviction.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

This includes your English Bible translation.

 

[David Lamb]

Listen guy, your argument is not making sense to me. If you do not believe your translated Bible is inspired then you must look up every word in a concordance to learn what God really said and to check if your translation is reliable. Otherwise you never really read the word of God. You guys, in trying to be the smartest persons in the room, often present yourselves as NOT.

I am a KJV only believer. It is not because I believe there is no value in the study of the words from which the KJV is translated. I sometimes post the Bible word and the meaning of it. There are passages in the scripture that would be very difficult to understand and be sound in ones doctrine unless he studied this way. The Greek words Kartegao and Pauo is an example in 1 Corinthians 13 that comes to mind in determining the meaning of the "perfect thing" in that discussion. It is difficult to be convinced by the English alone. Read your commentaries and see how many of them do not understand that.

The point is, now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments, then I think you are foolish. Blindly following men without proving them is not good. I have spent a lifetime proving the KJV and at the end of my life I am more convinced than ever that it is the word of God. The comparison with the original language words has helped greatly in arriving at my conviction.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

This includes your English Bible translation.

I do not believe translations are inspired. I believe God inspired the original bible, written in Hebrew and Greek, and I believe He helps translators of His word. I assure you I am not trying to be the smartest person in the room. I am sorry if I gave you such a boastful impression - it was certainly unintentional.

You wrote: "now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments." Sorry, when did I ever post such an idea? In the post to which you were replying, the only translation I mentioned was the KJV.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

the English language itself poses a problem for interpreters.

We have two general type. Work for works like KJV, NKJV NASB

And a general "thought for thought" translation like the NIV and the NLT.

Just like with the KJVO argument, you have people that argue against one or the other of these types of translation.

The flaw of the English language is it is weak. The Greek has far more tenses and language tools which makes it a more precise language, which is missing in the english language.

also. the english language has one word which can be used to translate many greek words all with different meaning (ie, Love in english translates Agape, Phileo or Philadelphia, Sarx and Eros in the greek)

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

so how do we properly interpret it as it is written?

We would need an expanded translation which flows away from a word for word translation. and tends to resemble more of a "general thought" translation which would not be welcomed by many.

(for those of us who have been a part of a church with general ICE principles and pastor teachers from Dallas Theological seminary. we may be full versed into what I am talking about.

As for words. Jesus restorative conversation with Peter (peter do you love me) I remember the first time I was in a study where the greek was consulted. That conversation between peter and Jesus became alot more powerful, (the fact Peter could not say He agape" loved Jesus. yet Jesus still told him to feed his sheep. shows how graceful God is..

Then we have the "transliterated words" Like baptize" which is not even a translation, (not sure why any interpreter would think of doing this, but it has caused division in the church since)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Listen guy, your argument is not making sense to me. If you do not believe your translated Bible is inspired \

No translation of any word is inspired.

Only the original autographs are inspired. even the copies of the text is not inspired. thats why there are so many different types

 

[Conan]

No translation of any word is inspired.

Only the original autographs are inspired. even the copies of the text is not inspired. thats why there are so many different types

But accurate copies retain the inspired Originals. True there are no perfect copies , but there are many accurate ones. But the ones that are correct do preserve the Originals. For instance John 1:1-17.

 

[37818]

True there are no perfect copies , . . .

Among Family 35 codex there are exact copies.

 

[37818]

Among Family 35 codex there are exact copies.

Video 14 minutes

 

[JD731]

the English language itself poses a problem for interpreters.

We have two general type. Work for works like KJV, NKJV NASB

And a general "thought for thought" translation like the NIV and the NLT.

Just like with the KJVO argument, you have people that argue against one or the other of these types of translation.

The flaw of the English language is it is weak. The Greek has far more tenses and language tools which makes it a more precise language, which is missing in the english language.

also. the english language has one word which can be used to translate many greek words all with different meaning (ie, Love in english translates Agape, Phileo or Philadelphia, Sarx and Eros in the greek)

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

so how do we properly interpret it as it is written?

We would need an expanded translation which flows away from a word for word translation. and tends to resemble more of a "general thought" translation which would not be welcomed by many.

(for those of us who have been a part of a church with general ICE principles and pastor teachers from Dallas Theological seminary. we may be full versed into what I am talking about.

As for words. Jesus restorative conversation with Peter (peter do you love me) I remember the first time I was in a study where the greek was consulted. That conversation between peter and Jesus became alot more powerful, (the fact Peter could not say He agape" loved Jesus. yet Jesus still told him to feed his sheep. shows how graceful God is..

Then we have the "transliterated words" Like baptize" which is not even a translation, (not sure why any interpreter would think of doing this, but it has caused division in the church since)

Let me just say that your logic here is very flawed. This can be illustrated by the example you chose to illustrate your point. You chose Ephesian 2 here:

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

What you actually illustrate is that you have completely missed the point of the letter and it's theme. The letter is the revelation of a "mystery." This mystery has been personally taught to one apostle Paul by Jesus Christ himself in the person of the Spirit. No doubt this took place in the beginning of Paul's Christian sojourn during his time in Arabia and he is charged to reveal it and explain it. The theme is the mystery that has been hidden in God and it is named in the epistle as "the mystery of Christ." It is defined in a single nutshell verse and it gives the PURPOSE for this age that some of us refers to as "the church age, but God in his book of Matthew chapter 13 refers to as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

Here is the defining verse;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers (with the Jews to whom the promise was given) of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

The Jews were promised salvation in Christ, the Jews savior, but not the gentiles. This was not a mystery. It is in Acts 10 that God invited gentiles to be saved along with the Jews. He is not keeping any promises to gentiles by this action but it is because he is good and kind and gracious and he pities us.

So, these facts instructs me that you are way off in presenting Eph 2:8 as you have done in your comments when you quoted God in this manner;

for By Grace we "have been" saved.

It is not "we" and it is not past tense. It is "ye" as in gentiles as included in the body with the Jews, who were first in the body, and it is "are" as in present tense, meaning "this present age."

Read what he said in the previous 7 verses and see how Paul uses ye/you with we/us along with "together" in the body of Christ.

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (He did not say "we are saved by grace" because the Jews were at that time still a nation and had the promise of the Abrahamic covenant. God was keeping a promise to them)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Grace equal Gift.



You presentation of Ephesians 2 frustrates the great doctrine of the church by not recognizing the three entities that are in the body of Christ, Jews, gentiles, and the Spirit of Christ, and how, when, and why they got there. Some of these translations changes the teaching of the truth. We must walk circumspectly and be watchful.

 

[Logos1560]

In the 1611 preface, the KJV translators alerted its readers: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.” The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered absolutely certain, perfect, and unquestionable.

The 1611 edition of the KJV may provide additional evidence that its English text likely has some even many non-literal renderings. In the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, its translators sometimes gave what they considered to be a literal meaning of Hebrew or Greek words. F. H. A. Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). Concerning 767 marginal notes in the New Testament, Scrivener maintained that “112 supply us with a more literal rendering of the Greek than was judged suitable for the text” and that “no less than 582 are alternative translations” (p. 56). John Eadie affirmed: “They appended 6,637 marginal notes to the Old Testament—two-thirds of these expressing the more literal meaning of the Hebrew or Chaldee, having ‘Heb.’ or ‘Chald.’ prefixed” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 215). Concerning the 1611 KJV, John Eadie noted: “A more literal rendering than that of the text is frequently set in the margin” (p. 216).

The fact that over 2,000 revisions, changes, and corrections were later made to the 1611 edition of the KJV is additional evidence that the translation decisions of the KJV translators were not absolutely certain, perfect, and unquestionable.

 

[JD731]

The fact that over 2,000 revisions, changes, and corrections were later made to the 1611 edition of the KJV is additional evidence that the translation decisions of the KJV translators were not absolutely certain, perfect, and unquestionable.

The KJV translators were wise to have that opinion about themselves. That is my opinion of them too. God could not trust men to make right decisions about his testimony. The text of the KJV says it is the words of God, not the words of the KJV translators. Jesús Christ himself said that his words are spirit and they are life. How could men of any stripe maintain the spiritual nature. The Lord was absolutely sure about the words he spoke and inspired and said so.

I am sure and certain that God's revelation of himself is in his own hands and is progressive. I believe Noah knew more about God than did Seth. That Abraham knew more than Noah, That Moses knew more than Abraham, That David knew more than Moses. I believe NT saints knows more than OT saints and that 21th century saints should know more than 1st century saints and that KJV English speaking saints knows more that Greek speaking saints.

The sun/Son came up in the East and it is going to set in the West but you would not understand that because you don't believe the words.

1 ¶ «To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.» The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

You, as a natural man can understand the physical truth but the physical truth is only that upon which the spiritual truth rests. All the words of the scriptures are spiritual and physical.

You have God in a little bitty box called the Greek.

 

[Logos1560]

I am sure and certain that God's revelation of himself is in his own hands and is progressive.

The giving of additional progressive direct revelation by God ended with the completion of the New Testament.

KJV-only author David Cloud noted: “The New Testament was finished in the days of the apostles and sealed in the final chapter, Revelation, with a solemn warning against adding to or taking away from it” (Why We Hold, p. 81).


O. Palmer Roberton wrote: “If revelation has been completed with the perfection of the New Testament Scriptures, then prophecy as the principal revelational gift has now ceased” (Final Word, p. 20). O. Palmer Robertson noted: “No further words, ideas, or supposed visions and prophecies shall supplement the completed revelation of Scripture” (p.60). Palmer Robertson noted: “This position [on continuing revelation] contradicts unequivocally the viewpoint that holds that revelation ceased at the end of the apostolic age when the authoritative writings of the New Testament were completed” (p. 88). Palmer Robertson wrote: “It is not limiting God to say that miracle-working as depicted in the New Testament occurs no more today, if God himself has determined that these signs attesting Christ and his apostles have served their purpose by confirming once and for all the foundational truth necessary for the ongoing life of Christ’s church” (p. 82). David Sorenson observed: “The greater thought is that when the writing of the New Testament was completed, the various special interim gifts of the Spirit to the early church would cease and vanish away. Hence, ‘that which is perfect’ [1 Cor. 13:10] refers to the completed New Testament” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 17). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13:10 in his commentary on this book, Gordon Clark wrote: “This raises the question: Completion of what? It could be completion of the canon. Miracles and tongues were for the purpose of guaranteeing the divine origin of apostolic doctrine. They ceased when the revelation was completed” (p. 212).

Arthur L. Johnson observed: “It seems that from the earliest times the church has held that direct revelation from God was complete and had ceased with the death of the twelve apostles and their companions, who had personally witnessed our Lord’s ministry, death, and resurrection” (Faith Misguided, p. 127). Arthur Johnson stated: “Protestantism has always insisted that this [special] revelation was completed when the writing of the Bible was finished” (p. 93). Arthur Johnson affirmed: “Biblical scholars have long maintained that there is strong implicit evidence in the Word that direct revelation was to cease with the death of those who were eye-witnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection” (p. 30). Thomas Corkish noted: “When there was no written revelation, God provided signs to validate the spoken Word of His prophets”, and he added: Today no signs are given since there is no new revelation being written” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 139). Thomas Corkish observed: “There could be no improvement, revision, addition, or subtraction to perfect the Words breathed out by God” (p. 142). Kent Brandenburg wrote: “The office of the apostle and first century signs and wonders were primarily a means of authentication of the Words of God” (p. 200). Bryan Ross quoted Richard Jordan as stating: “Revelation and inspiration are complete. There is no more revelation, and there is no more inspiration” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 116).


Arthur L. Johnson asserted: “Any denial, on the other hand, that the Bible is the completed revelation of God implies that God is continuing to communicate with man now as He did in the time of the writing of the Bible. This, of course, results in the position that this present-day revelation is authoritative in a way equal to or superior to the Scriptures” (Faith Misguided, p. 93). Arthur Johnson concluded: “Such a view must finally result in the position that current revelation is superior to the written Word” (Ibid.). Arthur Johnson observed: “To claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given” (p. 30). O. Palmer Robertson asserted: “Any claims to add further revelation beyond the end of God’s word as found in the completed Scriptures would be not only superfluous but blasphemous” (Final Word, p. 66). Palmer Robertson warned: “Obviously a contemporary word from God with full divine authority would rival the functioning authority of Scripture in the lives of God’s people” (p. 120).

Illumination or guiding by the Holy Spirit would not be the same thing as the giving of new special revelation by inspiration of God.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Let me just say that your logic here is very flawed. This can be illustrated by the example you chose to illustrate your point. You chose Ephesian 2 here:



What you actually illustrate is that you have completely missed the point of the letter and it's theme. The letter is the revelation of a "mystery." This mystery has been personally taught to one apostle Paul by Jesus Christ himself in the person of the Spirit. No doubt this took place in the beginning of Paul's Christian sojourn during his time in Arabia and he is charged to reveal it and explain it. The theme is the mystery that has been hidden in God and it is named in the epistle as "the mystery of Christ." It is defined in a single nutshell verse and it gives the PURPOSE for this age that some of us refers to as "the church age, but God in his book of Matthew chapter 13 refers to as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

Here is the defining verse;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers (with the Jews to whom the promise was given) of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

The Jews were promised salvation in Christ, the Jews savior, but not the gentiles. This was not a mystery. It is in Acts 10 that God invited gentiles to be saved along with the Jews. He is not keeping any promises to gentiles by this action but it is because he is good and kind and gracious and he pities us.

So, these facts instructs me that you are way off in presenting Eph 2:8 as you have done in your comments when you quoted God in this manner;



It is not "we" and it is not past tense. It is "ye" as in gentiles as included in the body with the Jews, who were first in the body, and it is "are" as in present tense, meaning "this present age."

Read what he said in the previous 7 verses and see how Paul uses ye/you with we/us along with "together" in the body of Christ.

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (He did not say "we are saved by grace" because the Jews were at that time still a nation and had the promise of the Abrahamic covenant. God was keeping a promise to them)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Grace equal Gift.



You presentation of Ephesians 2 frustrates the great doctrine of the church by not recognizing the three entities that are in the body of Christ, Jews, gentiles, and the Spirit of Christ, and how, when, and why they got there. Some of these translations changes the teaching of the truth. We must walk circumspectly and be watchful.

its in the perfect tense.. They had already been saved.

Your logic is faulty and you prety much proved my point

 

[Logos1560]

You, as a natural man can understand the physical truth but the physical truth is only that upon which the spiritual truth rests.

Your opinion is incorrect. You seem unsoundly to consider you yourself superior to other believers. You are not an infallible "pope" who is perfect in your understanding of the Scriptures.

As a believer indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit of truth, I understand spiritual truth just as well as you can.

 

[Logos1560]

The text of the KJV says it is the words of God, not the words of the KJV translators.

That is evidently your misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the KJV. Perhaps by eisegesis you are reading your own human opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you may read into them or add to them.

The text of the KJV clearly teaches that it is the process of the giving of all Scripture to the prophets and apostles that is by a direct miracle of inspiration of God.

The text of the KJV does not teach that the process of post-NT translating is by a miracle of inspiration of God. The text of the KJV does not teach that the translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England priests proceeded directly from the mouth by God by direct inspiration. The KJV was made by the same processes by which the multiple, varying pre-1611 English Bibles were made. The text of the KJV does not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revisions decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611. The text of the KJV does not suggest that God would contradict His wisdom from above by showing partiality or respect to persons to one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

 

[JD731]

its in the perfect tense.. They had already been saved.

Your logic is faulty and you prety much proved my point

Well, okay but what do you think the mystery is that Paul is revealing?

The giving of additional progressive direct revelation by God ended with the completion of the New Testament.

KJV-only author David Cloud noted: “The New Testament was finished in the days of the apostles and sealed in the final chapter, Revelation, with a solemn warning against adding to or taking away from it” (Why We Hold, p. 81).


O. Palmer Roberton wrote: “If revelation has been completed with the perfection of the New Testament Scriptures, then prophecy as the principal revelational gift has now ceased” (Final Word, p. 20). O. Palmer Robertson noted: “No further words, ideas, or supposed visions and prophecies shall supplement the completed revelation of Scripture” (p.60). Palmer Robertson noted: “This position [on continuing revelation] contradicts unequivocally the viewpoint that holds that revelation ceased at the end of the apostolic age when the authoritative writings of the New Testament were completed” (p. 88). Palmer Robertson wrote: “It is not limiting God to say that miracle-working as depicted in the New Testament occurs no more today, if God himself has determined that these signs attesting Christ and his apostles have served their purpose by confirming once and for all the foundational truth necessary for the ongoing life of Christ’s church” (p. 82). David Sorenson observed: “The greater thought is that when the writing of the New Testament was completed, the various special interim gifts of the Spirit to the early church would cease and vanish away. Hence, ‘that which is perfect’ [1 Cor. 13:10] refers to the completed New Testament” (God’s Perfect Book, p. 17). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13:10 in his commentary on this book, Gordon Clark wrote: “This raises the question: Completion of what? It could be completion of the canon. Miracles and tongues were for the purpose of guaranteeing the divine origin of apostolic doctrine. They ceased when the revelation was completed” (p. 212).

Arthur L. Johnson observed: “It seems that from the earliest times the church has held that direct revelation from God was complete and had ceased with the death of the twelve apostles and their companions, who had personally witnessed our Lord’s ministry, death, and resurrection” (Faith Misguided, p. 127). Arthur Johnson stated: “Protestantism has always insisted that this [special] revelation was completed when the writing of the Bible was finished” (p. 93). Arthur Johnson affirmed: “Biblical scholars have long maintained that there is strong implicit evidence in the Word that direct revelation was to cease with the death of those who were eye-witnesses of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection” (p. 30). Thomas Corkish noted: “When there was no written revelation, God provided signs to validate the spoken Word of His prophets”, and he added: Today no signs are given since there is no new revelation being written” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 139). Thomas Corkish observed: “There could be no improvement, revision, addition, or subtraction to perfect the Words breathed out by God” (p. 142). Kent Brandenburg wrote: “The office of the apostle and first century signs and wonders were primarily a means of authentication of the Words of God” (p. 200). Bryan Ross quoted Richard Jordan as stating: “Revelation and inspiration are complete. There is no more revelation, and there is no more inspiration” (From This Generation, Vol. 1, p. 116).


Arthur L. Johnson asserted: “Any denial, on the other hand, that the Bible is the completed revelation of God implies that God is continuing to communicate with man now as He did in the time of the writing of the Bible. This, of course, results in the position that this present-day revelation is authoritative in a way equal to or superior to the Scriptures” (Faith Misguided, p. 93). Arthur Johnson concluded: “Such a view must finally result in the position that current revelation is superior to the written Word” (Ibid.). Arthur Johnson observed: “To claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given” (p. 30). O. Palmer Robertson asserted: “Any claims to add further revelation beyond the end of God’s word as found in the completed Scriptures would be not only superfluous but blasphemous” (Final Word, p. 66). Palmer Robertson warned: “Obviously a contemporary word from God with full divine authority would rival the functioning authority of Scripture in the lives of God’s people” (p. 120).

Illumination or guiding by the Holy Spirit would not be the same thing as the giving of new special revelation by inspiration of God.

Now who am I to argue against the great minds of Palmer Roberton and Author L Johnson? But what is one of the main reasons for a continuous line of new Bibles? It is so people can understand God better in modern English and it is accomplished through new Bibles. They are not commentaries, they are Bibles with the title "Word of God. That is a desire for more and better revelation, is it not? So, to claim a further revelation is to deny the sufficiency and completeness of what has already been given. Obviously the given revelation has not worked for them or they are under the assumption that it has not worked for others.

And BTW, I am nor advocating for more and better Bibles, you are. I am sure we have God's revelation preserved for us in the KJV. It makes me wonder why you named yourself after the Geneva Bible.