Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

Larry,
I was finished with our discussion until your last post where I at least want to call you on a couple things so as not to insult peoples intelligence. After that you can have the last word.
For one Larry, you said:
"I have not really tried to mount an argument."

Now besides stating the obvious, it also contradicts this statement of yours:
"Your page 4 post was completely refuted and shown to be irrelevant."

How can you completely refute my argument and show it to be irrelevant without mounting an argument? I don't know but at least we can agree on this statement:

"I haven't really tried to address the argument per se in depth."

That is obvious. Let me point out another statement you made:

"Those verses cannot be applied to a particular translation; they applie to translations that faithfully translate the text."

So the book of the LORD is not a particular book? It is unnamed books that translate 'the text'. Is 'the text' the book of the LORD? Which text are you referring to, a particular text? Or all texts that faithfully represent the originals? This of course brings us to where we started, you don't have the originals and thus don't know if the texts and translations are faithful. So ultimately the book of the LORD is not a real particular thing, it is an abstraction, a goal, a nice idea. Is this what Paul meant when he said "How unsearchable are thy judgments and thy ways past finding out"?
And finally Larry you state:

"The problem is that your position is not supported from Scripture, or from PA."

Now I know this is not an argument as is common in your posts, but perhaps we could have a fruitful discussion if you could demonstrate this. First you assert no scripture can apply to a particular translation. This could have been enlightening if you had time to get 'in depth'. And also if you could have strung together a couple of cogent thoughts about how I was not understanding PA, we could have brought out more enlightening than 'you don't understand it'.
Thanks again for your time, but in the future if you are not intending to provide rational argument, please say so up front before someone else jumps through your hoops in an attempt to find out if you have something coherent to offer.
AV

Natters, I asked, “Help me understand your position. Are you saying all English versions are infallible and inerrant, no English versions are infallible and inerrant, all Greek texts are infallible and inerrant, or no Greek text is infallible and inerrant?”

You replied with…
________________________________________
I believe terms like "infallible" and "inerrant" are to be applied to specific aspects of a Bible, not just a Bible as a whole. What I mean by this is that often in these discussions, people think a Bible is either inerrant, or it isn't, period - when in fact in can be inerrant in one aspect and errant in another. For example, a typo in one edition of a Bible means the "ink" is errant, but the inerrant message remains the same as an edition without the typo. Another example: one Bible may read "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" in Matt 1:1, another read "This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah", another "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ", "A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ", etc., and despite the differences in ink, the message remains the same. So, to answer your question directly, all English versions are infallible and inerrant in their message if properly understood, but no English versions are infallible and inerrant in the sense of the ink on the paper.________________________________________
You said ‘All English versions are infallible and inerrant in their message if properly understood, but no English versions are infallible and inerrant in the sense of the ink on the paper. ‘ This is an interesting position. What if you were my professor and I turned in a paper that you marked up because of various errors and graded with a low grade? And what if I responded with, “My message was inerrant if you properly understood, but errant in the sense of the ink on the paper.”? This would not be acceptable – or logical – and I’d walk away with a low grade regardless. My paper is both errant and inerrant simultaneously (according to your logic) since some of it is right and some of it is wrong.
How can all English versions be infallible and inerrant in their message if properly understood? All English versions are not even close to the same whether understood or not. There are exactly 64,098 less words in the NIV than the KJV and the messages are often quite different. (The NIV has 17 whole verses less and thousands of words and phrases less than the KJV). Over the years, I’ve found that verses in different versions are often not in the same ballpark, or even diametrical opposites.
I have a Franklin Electronic Bible with KJV and the NIV. I flip over to the NIV all the time, sometimes just for a good laugh at the complete and total differences. For example, look at a few differences you’ll encounter in careful contrast/comparison:
Hosea 10: 1 in the KJV says, “Israel is an empty vine.” The NIV says, “Israel was a spreading vine.” (The NASB says “Israel is a luxuriant vine.”)
Proverbs 26:22 KJV: “The words of a talebearer are as wounds.” NIV says, “The words of a gossip are like choice morsels.” (NASB says ‘dainty morsels.’)
Jer. 51:3 KJV: “Let the archer bend his bow.” NIV says, “Let NOT the archer string his bow.”
Prov. 25:23 KJV: “The north wind driveth away rain.” NIV says, “As a north wind BRINGS rain.”
Hosea 11:12 KJV, “Judah yet ruleth with God.” NIV – “Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God.”
Job 16:20 KJV, “My friends scorn me.” NIV “My intercessor is my friend.”
Ps. 29:9 KJV, “The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve.” NIV “The voice of the Lord twists the oaks.”
Prov. 18:24 KJV “A man that hath friends must show himself friendly.” NIV “A man of many companions may come to ruin.”
Isaiah 9:1 KJV “…afterward did more greviously afflict Galilee…” NIV “in the future he will HONOR Galilee.”
Isaiah 9:3 KJV “NOT increased the joy.” NIV “increased their joy.”
Ps. 10, 4,5 KJV “wicked…His ways are always grievous.” NIV “wicked…his ways are always prosperous.”
Eccl. 8:10 KJV “wicked…were forgotten.” NIV “wicked…receive praise.”
(I Cor. 14:33 says, “God is NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”)
Now, in light of these verses, relook at your statement. You said ‘All English versions are infallible and inerrant in their message if properly understood.” I understood all that I just read, and they were DIFFERENT MESSAGES. Messages are comprised of words – words convey thought. When words are changed, messages are changed.
The Alexandrian manuscripts (underlying most new versions) compared to Byzantine/Syrian/Antioch manuscripts (underlying KJV) are quite different.
When the NIV totally removes fasting in Matt. 17:21, Mark 9:29, I Cor. 7:5 and Acts 10:30, the message is different. You don’t get a message to fast in 4 places there, in two, this is the recipe against a certain ‘kind’ of devil (prayer AND fasting).
Do you, in light of this, still hold that all English versions are infallible and inerrant?
And you still haven’t identified your perfect Bible. Are you saying there WAS a perfect Bible, but presently there is not?
I said, “I was hoping you would identify with specificity your perfect Bible or admit that no such entitity exists for the body of Christ (the church) today...”

You replied with…
________________________________________
I named a specific Bible. I said "The Geneva Bible, for one"
________________________________________

I have a 1599 Geneva in PDF format, as well as the English Hexapla new Testament containing Geneva. The Geneva is based on Antioch manuscripts and would not have the same differences as an NIV or NASB would. I did notice that all references to ‘free will’ (all 17 references) are changed. This is convenient, since the doctrine of free will was abhorred in Calvin’s camp, and needed to be changed. The message is understandable, but very much different. I personally don’t consider Geneva a ‘bad Bible’, since it’s from the Antioch line of texts, and it doesn’t contain the gross perversions evident in most modern versions.

The KJV improved Geneva and God put Geneva on the shelf, supplanting it with the KJV. The KJV is still going strong after almost 400 years.

Another point to consider is the providential hand of God upon English. I’ve read that in 1611, only around 5 million people spoke English in the world.
The world population in the year 2000 was 6 Billion, and guess how many people it was estimated that spoke English (whether secondary or primary) in 2000? 2 Billion people! Now this is from a secular source and maybe they are off some, but it’s still amazing. God’s providential plan for English is axiomatic.

Please comment on the differences I listed and please advise if you know of any COMPLETELY inerrant text, version, Bible on planet earth. This is a real dilemma. If our authority to determine what is right and wrong is both right and wrong, we have no particular landing place.
Also, I was wondering if you guys believe that Satan has had any influence whatsoever on textual transmission and translation? For example, is it possible that Satan didn’t have influence whatsoever with respect to the NIV or NASB translations? I’m interested in your thoughts.

For Pete's sake, WordofaKing! It's about time you joined us... I'm glad you noticed too about the statement that KJVO proponents only noticed the pseudo-Trinity logo as wrong with the NKJV. There's plenty more wrong. Oh, and by the way, James White uses that same logo in his book against King James Onlyism in the last couple of pages....
;^)

The most embarassing situation that I encounter is to hear someone saying that both KJV and NIV are good or I have both KJV and NASV and both are very good.
I would rather accept both East Coast and West Coast are good or Both Winter and Summer are good. In the physical world such comment may be OK, but in the spiritual discernment, guess what!

However, if anyone takes this way, she or he may be almost OK. i.e. On doctrinal issues I refer to KJV, but for the eloquence of colloquial vocabualry, I refer to NASV. But the words used in KJV is just about 6,000 which is far less than that of Shakespear's 27,000.
Problem is the colloquialism or modern language to adapt to the changing environment, which shows the laziness of the people who love KJV.

If anyone is surely born-again in the Lord, has studied enough in depth about the textual differences, Greek grammar and Hebrew Grammar, background for the compilers like Westcott/Hort, Nestle-Aland, and Erasmus/Stephanus, Daniel Bomberg-Ben Chayyim, Ginzburg, then started to translate verse by verse on the principle of Word-to-Word, she or he will find herself or himself very much sick and tired of lots of omissions, modifications, poor excuses in the minority texts-Westcott/Hort-Nestle-Aland line.

Instead of arguing, I would recommend everyone here to try to translate more than 30 pages of Gospels like John or Matthew and compare between 2 groups, Majority texts/TR and Nestle-Aland.

If anyone had chosen minority texts like, A,B,Aleph, then she or he should stay there until they find the fundamental problems with it.
Then they can publish such translation, without the story of the woman caught in the adultery, without Mark 16:12-20. Cowardly they borrow such verses from Majority texts, then criticize them as late texts, why do they borrow from Majority then?
In case of TR or Majority line they owe nothing to minority texts and don't need them at all!

On the other hand, I think KJV-Only-ists misunderstand the preservation of the Words of God only as a specific type of Book. God preserved the Words, neither Book, nor Bookbinding, nor Publishing company, nor Versions themselves.
This becomes more clearer when we study about the Aramaic NT. I have made a certain amount of study on Aramaic NT, and they have just reasons to draw our attention. Someone says that many ancient Christians testified that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Even Acts has problems when we read in Greek. The Eunuch could not worship inside the temple as he is de-masculinated(read Dt 23:1). So, when we present Acts 8:27 to the Jews, they laugh quickly at the Bible saying it is a hoax.
But if we take Aramaic, we can resolve the problem because the word has 2 meanings, Eunuch and Minister. So some claims that NT was written Aramaic first, the other claims that NT was written in Hebrew first then translated into Greek later. Maybe only a part of NT might have been written either in Hebrew or Aramaic.
This is why the translation committee of KJV included many of scholars expertised in Aramaic, Chaldaean, Egyptian Hieroglyphic, Persian, Syriac, even though the 3 languages(Hebrew, Greek, Latin) were the basic requirements for the translators in addition to English of course.
IMO, God has left the work of the true Bible in the accuracy of 99.5% then handed over to the next generation so that they should be vigilant and diligent for working for the Words of God as we can see the deviation a little from Dead Sea Scroll about 0.5%, even though DSS is not authenticated.

In this era, the true believers must be vigilant and diligent to compare the texts, background and history, languages etc to find out the genuine Words of God. Too much KJVO or Pre-suppositionalism will prevent the true believers from paying the due diligence, which is harmful to understanding the Words of God, I believe.

[ December 25, 2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

Eliyahu. Thanks for your input. At the very least we can both agree with the elementary principle that 'things different are not the same.' Nothing is more ignorant that the assertion that the NIV and KJV are basically the same. As AV stated previously -- their very existence proves they are different.
Why all of this toil and labor to produce versions (blood, $weat, and tear$) that really affect no doctrinal change (or so they claim)?

Hosea 11:12b is very revealing in that respect...
KJV "...Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints."
NIV "...Judah is unruly against God, even against the faithful Holy One."

Also, Proverbs 16:6 --
KJV "By mercy and truth iniquity is purged..."
NIV "Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for..."
Besides ending a statement with a preposition (grammatical attrocity), who out here would honestly think that mercy is the same as love and that truth is the same as faithfulness?
And, theologically/doctrinally, love and faithfulness doesn't purge sin.

But we continually hear the same: "all versions are the word of God", etc. Or "The new versions just made it easier to understand."

So far, I have noticed 98% of the arguements against KJV are based on the ignorance or negligence of the doctrinal issues which are very much fundamental for all the discussions and studies.
When doctrinal issues become the subjects of the debate, KJV excercise its powerful accuracy! and we can notice God blesses the people spiritually who read KJV!

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
So far, I have noticed 98% of the arguements against KJV are based on the ignorance or negligence of the doctrinal issues which is very much fundamental for all the discussions and studies.
When doctrinal issues become the subjects of the debate, KJV excercise its powerful accuracy! and we can notice God blesses the people who read KJV, spiritually!

Click to expand...

What if someone reads the NASB academically and applies it spiritually? Or better yet reads the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and applies it spiritually?

James does not speak as a genuine saving faith being expressed in reading the KJV or any other version.

He mentions a genuine saving faith is expressed in a practical faith which is the proof of a genuine saving faith. In contrast the Jews believed their faith was written on the pages of a book. James says it is written in the hearts of men.

Good question, gb93433... (You asked, "What if someone reads the NASB academically and applies it spiritually?") Let's ponder the ramifications momentarily...
What if someone reads THIS in the NASB academically and applies it spiritually?....
I Cor. 8:4 NASB "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world..."

This is just about as goofy as it gets. And it is a lie too. Of course THERE IS A SUCH A THING as an idol. Thus the warnings throughout scripture to forsake idolatry.

The KJV rendering is: "we know that an idol is nothing in the world."
We repute an idol as nothing, but we don't say there's no such a thing.

OR.... What if someone reads THIS in the NASB academically and applies it spiritually?....

Psalms 8:5 NASB (speaking of man), "Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!"

First, there's no such thing as an idol, and now I'm a *little* lower than God. (Also, why would you be talking to God and say this in such a fashion? - it doesn't sound right -- read it again... You would say, "You have made man a little than YOU." So, something is obviously wrong here...) Wow, that could make me proud. And for a wild second I thought I was lightyears - yea, infinitely, lower than God.

The KJV once again comes to the rescue....
Psalms 8:5 KJV
"For thou hast made him a little lower than the ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Now, that's better. I'm a little lower than the angels (NOT GOD!).

Let's hope people don't read the NASB and apply it spiritually. The world is already filled with idolators who don't think there's any such a thing and with people who think they are almost God.

[ December 25, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Bookborn ]

Pastor Larry said:

You are using an argument for one thing and trying to apply it to another. And you are doing it illegitimately.

Heh. On that note, I wonder how long it will be before someone comes along and attempts an ontological proof of KJV-onlyism?

Let us suppose a Bible greater than which none can be imagined . . .

Originally posted by Bookborn:
Psalms 8:5 NASB (speaking of man), "Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!"

The KJV once again comes to the rescue....
Psalms 8:5 KJV
"For thou hast made him a little lower than the ANGELS, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."

Now, that's better. I'm a little lower than the angels (NOT GOD!)

Let's hope people don't read the NASB and apply it spiritually. The world is already filled with idolators who don't think there's any such a thing and with people who think they are almost God.

Click to expand...

You cannot plug in your theology and interpretation into deciding the text. Your theology must always come from the text.

Psalm 8:5 in the LXX and English Bibles is Psa. 8:6 in the MT BHS and it reads "elohim".

Elohim is translated God, gods, God of Israel, and a few others. I see no evidence of elohim ever being translated angels.

In Psa 68:17 in the KJV elohim is translated God. But in Psa 8:5, angels. There is no word for angels in the MT. The KJV has added “even thousands of angels”

Elohim is found 2248 times in the OT

An example of just a few are found in Gen 1:1-14, 16-18,20-22, 24-29, 31; 2:2-5, 7-9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22; 3:1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14,21-23; 4:25; 5:1, 24; 6:12, 13, 22; 7:9, 16; 8:1, 15; 9:1, 6, 8,12, 16, 17, 27; 17:3, 9, 15, 22, 23;
19:29; 20:3, 11, 13, 17; 21:2, 4, 6, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22; 22:8,12; 23:6; 25:11; 28:4, 12, 17, 20, 22; 30:2, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23; 31:7, 9, 16, 24, 42, 50; 32:2, 3, 29, 31; 33:5, 10, 11; 35:1, 5, 9-11, 13, 15; 41:16, 38, 39; 41:51, 52; 42:28, 29; 45:5, 7, 9; 46:2; 48:9, 11, 20, 21; 50:19, 20, 25;

So I could not disagree with you more.

gb93433,
You said, "So I could not disagree with you more."
So, you believe you are a LITTLE LOWER THAN GOD?
We're all eyes. Please type out here for all of us to see. Type, "I, gb93433, am a little lower than God."

Since you could not disagree with me more, can you disagree with the writer of Hebrews more?
Ever read Hebrews 2:6,7?

How about the NASB rendering of Hebrews 2:6,7 which contradicts it's very own Psalms 8:5 (ha,ha):
"But one has testified somewhere, saying, WHAT IS MAN, THAT YOU REMEMBER HIM? OR THE SON OF MAN, THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HIM? YOU HAVE MADE HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE LOWER THAN THE ANGELS; YOU HAVE CROWNED HIM WITH GLORY AND HONOR, AND HAVE APPOINTED HIM OVER THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; YOU HAVE PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET " (NASB)

Or the KJV rendering, which doesn't oppose itself (but matches it's own Psalms 8:5):
"But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands..." (KJV)

Also, you never commented on the NASB lie that there is no such thing as idols.

Don't assume King James folks are backwoods blockheads. I have a hard copy of the LXX in my library, and a boatload of lexical 'evidence.' But let's face it, your dilemma now is that you have contradicted the NEW TESTAMENT QUOTATION OF PSALMS 8:5 (which by your own admission is not from the LXX). By the way, if we are to believe the N.T. was written in Greek -- then this was an inspired translation from Hebrew to Greek. 1/3 of the N.T. is thus inspired translation, since 1/3 of the N.T. is O.T. quotations.
You mean God actually inspired translation?
I've found the main contradictions are not in the Bible but but between people's ears.

The writer of Hebrews didn't hold the lofty position that you hold (a little lower than God).

Repent ye therefore.

Ransom,
The transcendental proof for the existence of God says that evidentialism (or singular evidences one at a time) is inadequate to prove God exists and it allows the unbeliever to continue to believe he is neutral and that facts exist apart from the Christian God. If the unbeliever wants to use logic he has to validate it's use with no appeal to God. If he wants to use science he has to prove the uniformity of nature apart from the true God. Once he begins to realize he has no where to go to substantiate logic and science apart from Christianity as expressed in the bible, then he must face the knowledge of God which he placed in all men.
Now the bible is the key to Van Til's apologetic as it provides the revelation of Christianity. And as such it provides the worldview needed to allow for reason, morals, science, etc. in the various Christian doctrines located in the bible. The bible being the singular unit of doctrine and revelation.
Along comes 'older more reliables' onto the scene. They inject empiricism into the bible itself, because now we aren't sure what the bible consists of entirely. We look to science to determine the age of manuscripts, we look to archaeology, and geology to support these findings. And we look to scholars to analyse scribal habits, all of them working together to tell us which parts of the bible are authentic and which are dubious in origin.
Now there is a glaring conflict going on in front of our faces. On the presuppositional side of things the doctrines taught in the bible provide the shelter for the sciences, logic, etc. On the evidentialist side we have scholars trying to provide a shelter for the bible with the sciences. They are not equal, they are opposite philosophies. Choose you this day whom ye shall serve.
Now since the question of which bibles are closer to the originals has been brought up by appeals to 'older more reliables', the question needs to be addressed. We look to the bible itself for guidance (what a novel idea), and find that God providentially preserves his words not in contradictory scraps scattered throughout the world, and scholars forming ideas on how best to make them all fit together. Rather the Spirit gives us the word through the church. And it is preserved by God in a book. Where the doctrines of Christianity needed for presuppositional necessity are are accessible. God brought about the canon providentially, and he distributes his words to all peoples through translations, as taught in the bible itself. Now if you want to dispute this then lets have it. Provide us scripture to support your assertions, and provide us an explanation for the presuppositional dilemma you embrace.
AV

gb93433,
Step down a notch or two and hearken unto my lowly voice....
Quick correction to my statement that you stated the LXX didn't contain 'angels.' I thought you were implying the LXX didn't have 'angels'. Well, it was unclear in your post what you were saying in that respect - but I just blew dust from and checked my LXX, and it does indeed have 'angels' for this passage.

You are correct in saying that it corresponds to Psalms 8:6 in the LXX, etc.
It says,
"8:6 hlattwsav auton braxu ti par' aggelouv doch kai timh estefanwsav auton." (I transliterated into English characters)
That 'aggelouv' is translated 'angels.'

Peradventure God shall grant thee repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.

Originally posted by AV:
Ed,
Take your medicine and go home, I think I hear your mom calling.

Click to expand...

She says
on her board:

One of my friends at church said she woke up to her 3 yr. old singing Happy Birthday dear Jesus on the baby monitor. May we all remember whose birthday it is as we open our presents to and from each other. Blessed Christmas to you all.

Click to expand...

Amen, Sister Mother - You are RIGHT ON!

Merry Christmas

Originally posted by Ransom:
On that note, I wonder how long it will be before someone comes along and attempts an ontological proof of KJV-onlyism?

Let us suppose a Bible greater than which none can be imagined . . .

Click to expand...

What we need is a tie-in will all the great Doctrines

Bibliology
Theology
Christology
Pneumatology
Anthropology
Hamartiology
Soteriology
Ecclesiology
Angelology
Eschatology

Originally posted by Bookborn:
gb93433,
You said, "So I could not disagree with you more."
So, you believe you are a LITTLE LOWER THAN GOD?
We're all eyes. Please type out here for all of us to see. Type, "I, gb93433, am a little lower than God."

Since you could not disagree with me more, can you disagree with the writer of Hebrews more?
Ever read Hebrews 2:6,7?

Click to expand...

I thought we were dealing with Psa 8:5 in the English text, Psa 8;6 in the MT and Psa 8:6 in the LXX. The LXX reads what the KJV does but the MT does not. So you do prefer the LXX reading over the MT? My own translation form the MT reads, “You really made him inferior (or less) to God.” In the first part of the verse I do not really like the NAS nor the KJV. I prefer the RSV better in this case than any of the others I have seen.

Did you actually read Psa. 8:6 in the MT and study what elohim means? What is your understanding of elohim and why the Hebrew text does have a word for angels?

In Josh 22:22; 1Kin 18:39; 1Chr 13:6; 2Chr 30:19; Psa 50:1; andPsa 68:27 God is the elohim Yahweh. It is the same word used in Psa 8:5.

I am not an expert above all others and claim to have the entire picture in its context. So maybe you can enlighten me about the usages of elohim in the OT. In all of my reading I have not come across anywhere that it has been translated as angels.

In Genesis 28:12 two words are used. One for angels and another for God. It reads “angels of God” or “messengers of God”.

Obviously elohim and the word for angels is used to signify angels of God. But only elohim is used in Ps. 8:5. The Hebrew text has a word for angels and it is not used in Ps. 8;5 but is used in Gen 28:12

By adding “a little lower” you are adding to the text. There is no superlative used in the text. A piel verb used there and not a superlative.

There are many times when translation committees try to synthesize texts with one another. I think it is absolutely wrong. The NIV did that in Amos 4:4. They did that also in the KJV. If one reads the passage he will notice it does not fit the irony Amos presents. The Hebrew text reads three days. The LXX reads three days. The KJV reads three years. Is the KJV wrong or is the LXX and Hebrew text wrong?

Just because there are many quotes in the NT does not establish the OT text. If you try to line up every OT quote in the NT with an OT link you will come up short.

There are quotes in the NT from the OT which are paraphrased, interpreted and applied in a different context.

When you quoted 1 Cor you only quoted part of the verse and not the paragraph giving its context trying to establish a point. If you read the paragraph your point is nonsensical. Just a simple hermeneutical principle.

Originally posted by Bookborn:
Another point to consider is the providential hand of God upon English. I’ve read that in 1611, only around 5 million people spoke English in the world.
The world population in the year 2000 was 6 Billion, and guess how many people it was estimated that spoke English (whether secondary or primary) in 2000? 2 Billion people!

Click to expand...

What a great opportunity we have!! But sadly the church in America has been on a slow decline since about the 1950s. We are also seeing a decline in foreign students coming to America now.

Often I think of the opportunity Paul, etc. had with Greek being the trade language.

Psalm 8:5 (Geneva Bible, 1585):
For thou hast made him a little lower then God,
and crowned him with glory and worship.

Psalm 8:5 (KJV1611 Edition):
For thou hast made him a little lower
then the Angels; and hast crowned him with
glory and honour.

Bookborn: //The KJV improved Geneva and God put Geneva on the shelf,
supplanting it with the KJV. The KJV is still going strong
after almost 400 years.//

Why doesn't your KJV read like this?

Hebrews 4:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
Seeing then that wee haue a great high Priest,
that is passed into the heauens,
Iesus the Sonne of God,
let vs hold fast our profession.

Why did the KJV have to be improved to read like this?

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.

Bookborn: //I’ve read that in 1611, only around 5 million people
spoke English in the world. The world population in the year 2000
was 6 Billion, and guess how many people it was estimated that
spoke English (whether secondary or primary) in 2000? 2 Billion people!//

I confirm your numbers as being likely accurate.
Probably some 6,000,000 people can STILL read the KJV1611 Edition.
What should the other 1,994,000,000 people read? I recommend
something for the non-England, non-USA English readers like
maybe the New International Version (NIV1978 Edition).

Ed,
Do you reply simply to set forth personal pontification? 'I recommend' you offer us something along rational lines, like a reason or an argument. 'Ed recommends' doesn't go far as a reason.
Thanks,
AV