KJV Onlyest 1611 Psalm 12:7 note, question.

JD731 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JD731 said:

According to what scholar?

Click to expand...

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).

JD731 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

David Lamb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

JD731 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

David Lamb said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JD731 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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)

JD731 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Eternally Grateful said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Conan said:

True there are no perfect copies , . . .

Click to expand...

Among Family 35 codex there are exact copies.

37818 said:

Among Family 35 codex there are exact copies.

Click to expand...

Video 14 minutes