Featured Let God Be True

Yes, let God be true.

You seem also to assume that your own personal opinions and assertions that you do not prove to be true also have to be true. Your private or personal interpretations of verses in the KJV can be incorrect if though you do not seem to consider that possibility.

The truth that every word of God is pure also means that every error made or introduced by men are not pure words of God. The Scriptures also make it clear that words added by men are not the pure words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

In your posts, you seem to attack and condemn Bible believers who believe what God said concerning His words just for disagreeing with your non-scriptural, personal opinions or assertions that you seem to try to add to the word of God.

 

I believe what all those verses in the KJV state. I believe all that the Scriptures teach about themselves. What those verses state was true before 1611 and would still be true even if the 1611 KJV had never be made.

Instead of just believing what those verses state, you seem to assume that others also have to accept your personal opinions about the meaning of those verses. Perhaps you jump to opinions or conclusions concerning the KJV that those verses do not actually teach

 

None of the verses that you cited say anything about the later process of Bible translation or about post-NT Bible translations. You are assuming something that the verses do not actually state.

The truth stated in those verses remained true even when copiers of original-language manuscripts made some mistakes in copying and introduced some variations. The truth in those verses also remained true when later Bible translators made some mistakes or introduced some variations and when they added words in translating for which they had no original-language words of Scripture, and when they omitted providing a translated word for some original-language words of Scripture.

Perhaps you merely incorrectly assume or claim that I cannot believe what those verses say unless I accept your opinions about them. You fail to convince me that your opinions are stated in those verses. You do not even make any serious effort to convince others of your view but instead merely condemn based on your own imperfect opinions.

 

Yes, it is an error for you to try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You cannot read my mind and insert beliefs into it that I do not have.

Because in agreement with scriptural truth, I agree that errors introduced by men and words added by men are not inspired, pure words of God does not mean that I do not believe that inspired scripture does not exist. You jump to a wrong conclusion. When a printer or printers introduced some errors into editions of the KJV, it did not mean that the words accurately translated in the KJV lost their derived authority as the word of God translated into English. Inspired scripture did not cease to exist because there were many actual variations or differences in the multiple varying original-language texts from the KJV was translated.

Does your own stated reasoning suggest that inspired scripture did not exist in the imperfect multiple original-language texts from the KJV was translated? If that is what your reasoning suggests, I am not that negative against the multiple texts on which the KJV was based. Are you displaying inconsistency in what you try to demand for today compared to what you would suggest about before 1611?

 

Again I have not stated the words that you try to put in my mouth.

God was involved in the making of the KJV in the same way that God was involved in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and in the same way that God was involved in the making of post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

I conclude from what the Scriptures state as translated in the KJV that God does not show partiality to one certain set of English Bible translators. If I were to show respect of persons to the KJV translators, I would be committing sin according to James 2:9. Would you suggest that I should sin by showing respect of persons and partiality to the KJV translators?

 

Are you trying to suggest that no one can get born again from the pre-1611 English Bibles or from post-1611 English Bibles?

You seem to think that you know it all and have perfect understanding so why don't you answer your own questions?

 

Why do you make that negative, unscriptural imperative command?

I am shocked that you attempt to command believers to do that.

 

That is not at all what I do. I have not at all advocated a weak God as you falsely allege. You bear false witness with your negative, false allegations that improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I maintain that God has kept and keeps all His promises in contrast to the bogus words you improperly put in my mouth. In agreement with the Scriptures, I maintain that Almighty God is the God of truth.

You must have a weak or poor case for your opinions if you have to bear false witness to try to rationalize your non-scriptural opinions.

 

As I have already clearly stated, God keeps and fulfils all His promises. You continue improperly to try to twist what I state into something that I did not say.

Matthew 4:4 is not a promise from God. Matthew 4:4 is an instruction to man from God quoted from Deuteronomy. You seem to misunderstand or misinterpret what that instruction means as would be proven by Luke 4:4.

Does Matthew 4:4 actually state or teach that there has to be one present every-word perfect Bible or one every-word perfect English Bible translation? Do these KJV-only authors think through the logical implications or consequences of their own assertions? How does anyone live by a single word such a definite article or indefinite article or a conjunction? Does Matthew 4:4 make any mention of the process of printing a book or of the process of Bible translating? Do some KJV-only advocates in effect presume to tell God what Matthew 4:4 has to mean? Does Matthew 4:4 teach that it is God’s responsibility to provide every person with an every-word perfect Bible? Is this new KJV-only interpretation of this verse applied consistently and justly both before and after 1611 and applied justly to all languages? Was this new KJV-only interpretation perhaps conceived or invented to try to justify non-scriptural claims for the KJV? Are there any other possible sound understandings concerning what Matthew 4:4 is teaching that would agree better with the whole counsel of God? At times, are KJV-only advocates possibly guilty of “understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7)?

When Deuteronomy 8:3 was given by inspiration to Moses, every word of all Scripture had not yet been given. It should be obvious that God was not commanding that people live by words that had not yet been revealed and given by inspiration. According to this new KJV-only interpretation, was God demanding that people in the time of Moses have an absolutely perfect memory to remember every word from God that Moses spoke or every word of the law read to them by the priests? Was there any command or instruction for every Hebrew man to make complete handwritten copies of the law of Moses? When the Lord Jesus Christ quoted from Deuteronomy 8:3, every word of the New Testament had not yet been given by inspiration. Could it at least be agreed that this command or instruction from God was saying that people should live by every word that they did have and not that they needed to live by words that had not yet been given? Every word from Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 4:4 is not found in the quotation in Luke 4:4. Six individual words [“that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”] spoken by Jesus as found in Matthew 4:4 are not preserved and presented in Luke 4:4. Is this fact a hint or indication that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be incorrect? According to the KJV-only interpretation, could early readers of the gospel of Luke who did not have a copy of the gospel of Matthew live by every word of God since Luke does not have six words quoted and stated by Jesus? Would a just application of KJV-only reasoning concerning Matthew 4:4 suggest that the Holy Spirit was wrong to move Luke to omit six of the words stated by Jesus? Would a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning in effect suggest that Luke 4:4 casts doubt on part of what is stated in Matthew 4:4? According to KJV-only reasoning, was it OK to omit or delete words in Luke 4:4 as long as they are somewhere else? Would a consistent, just application of KJV-only claims and assertions concerning Matthew 4:4 in effect condemn Luke 4:4 for not including and preserving every word that Jesus stated? Does Luke 4:4 clearly demonstrate or prove that the new KJV-only interpretation of “every word” at Matthew 4:4 could be faulty or wrong? Do KJV-only advocates in effect have to set aside other texts of Scripture in order to try to press a few favorite texts to an extreme or to try to misinterpret them in order to justify their human KJV-only reasoning?

What are the possibilities of the meaning or intepretation of “every word”? It could be noted that the same Greek word translated “word” at Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 is also translated by the KJV translators themselves as “saying” six times (Mark 9:32, Luke 2:17, Luke 2:50, Luke 9:45 [twice], Luke 18:34). Does that fact indicate that “every saying” would have been considered by the KJV translators to be an acceptable alternative rendering for “every word”? Would “every word” (Matt. 4:4) possibly be parallel in meaning to “every precept” (Heb. 9:19)? Would “every word of God” (Luke 4:4) be in harmony and in agreement with “all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” (Luke 1:6)? Would Luke 1:6 indicate that Zacharias and Elisabeth could be considered examples of two who lived by every word of God? If every word could mean every saying, every command, every ordinance, every precept, or every instruction of God, then perhaps KJV-only advocates may have jumped to a wrong conclusion in their new claim concerning Matthew 4:4. At Luke 4:4, the 1560 Geneva Bible has the following marginal note for “word”: “That is, by the ordinance, and providence of God.” Is that firsthand evidence that believers in that day had a different understanding of “every word” than post-1900 KJV-only advocates present? Did any of the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators suggest that Matthew 4:4 taught or required that they had to make a perfect every-word translation? Can any commentaries or writings by believers be cited from the 1500’s, 1600’s, or 1700’s that state that they understood Matthew 4:4 to teach what a few KJV-only authors recently assert? If this new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 was true, would it not have been necessary for English-speaking people to have been provided with a perfect every-word English translation many years before 1611?

KJV-only advocates would likely assert that “word” is the better or correct rendering at Matthew 4:4. However, they seem to ignore or avoid the fact that this rendering “word” [singular in number] in the KJV can actually refer to a saying or statement made up of several words. Clear evidence from the KJV itself would demonstrate this observation to be true. For example, “the word” at Matthew 26:75 and Mark 14:72 refers to an entire statement made by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 26:34 and Mark 14:30. At John 2:22, the word [singular] referred to an entire statement by Jesus as stated in John 2:19. Does “the word of faith” in Romans 10:8 refer to one single individual word so that the apostles preached a message comprised of only one word? Were the believers preaching the word (Acts 8:4), preaching a message comprised of only one word? Does the “word [singular] that I have spoken” (John 12:49) refer to one single word? When Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word” [singular] (Luke 1:38), it did not refer to one single word. The nobleman believed “the word” [singular], and it clearly referred not to a single word but to an entire statement made by Jesus [“Go thy way, thy son liveth” (John 4:50)]. Does “word” in John 17:20 refer to a single word? In an Old Testament example, the rendering “word” [singular] in Numbers 3:16 is used for instructions made up of over twenty words (Numbers 3:14-15). In another Old Testament example, “word” [singular] in Exodus 8:31 refers to sayings or statements made by Moses that consisted of several words (Exod. 8:29). These examples from the KJV itself should soundly demonstrate this point that “word” [singular] can refer to a saying, a command, precept, or an instruction made up of several words instead of having always to refer solely to one single word. Do these examples from the KJV indicate that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be mistaken?

 

Did you read what I posted? You seem to have difficulty understanding clear statements or else you try to distort and twist their meaning. My statements were based on what is taught in the KJV itself. You do not deal with all I actually pointed out, and you do not answer the thought-provoking questions that were asked.

This rendering “word” [singular in number] in the KJV can actually refer to a saying or statement made up of several words. Clear evidence from the KJV itself would demonstrate this observation to be true. For example, “the word” at Matthew 26:75 and Mark 14:72 refers to an entire statement made by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 26:34 and Mark 14:30. At John 2:22, the word [singular] referred to an entire statement by Jesus as stated in John 2:19. Does “the word of faith” in Romans 10:8 refer to one single individual word so that the apostles preached a message comprised of only one word? Were the believers preaching the word (Acts 8:4), preaching a message comprised of only one word? Does the “word [singular] that I have spoken” (John 12:49) refer to one single word? When Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word” [singular] (Luke 1:38), it did not refer to one single word. The nobleman believed “the word” [singular], and it clearly referred not to a single word but to an entire statement made by Jesus [“Go thy way, thy son liveth” (John 4:50)]. Does “word” in John 17:20 refer to a single word? In an Old Testament example, the rendering “word” [singular] in Numbers 3:16 is used for instructions made up of over twenty words (Numbers 3:14-15). In another Old Testament example, “word” [singular] in Exodus 8:31 refers to sayings or statements made by Moses that consisted of several words (Exod. 8:29).

These examples from the KJV itself should soundly demonstrate this point that “word” [singular] can refer to a saying, a command, precept, or an instruction made up of several words instead of having always to refer solely to one single word.

 

You should read my entire post, but you probably didn't. You can check the verses in the KJV itself.

What I put in bold is what is taught in the KJV itself by comparing what "word" in certain verses directly referred to.

You are the one suggesting that what is noted in the KJV is opinion. Are you rejecting facts from the KJV itself?

The wisdom from God above and from the Holy Spirit of truth guides me in understanding what is stated in the KJV as He will also guide other believers if they are willing to accept the truth.