They Dare Call This Science!

To my brother in Christ, Will K.

You may not be at a place where you can understand what I am about to say, but try!

Sometimes we busy ourselves in the work of "protecting" God and God's Word, to compensate for not doing God's work.
1) God does not need you to validate Him or His Word.
2) He does not need protecting- He has withstood far stronger attacks on Scripture than any now withstanding and I must say fared well for thousands of years without you or I!
3) Arguing translations has never, nor ever will, had the power to save.
4) While we fiddle, Rome burns!

I love the Word. I LOVE to"contend for the faith". But not allowing myself NOW to be drawn into a debate that I was in 15 years ago does not make me less a lover of the Word. Tommorrow, I will preach 2 services- one in church, one in a prison and I will use any translation I can lay hands on to "paint" a picture of Sin, Savior and cross, and Savior and empty tomb! I pray you will be working along side me in the field-
"...the harvest is plentiful, the workers few."
Blessings!

<Also, it is a bit hard to accurately count the word differences between the TR of the KJB and the Nestle text, because the Nestle text keeps on changing.>

As did the Textus Receptus. Erasmus alone re-wrote it at least twice, not to mention Stephanus & the others who followed Erasmus.

<The published Greek texts before 1611 were about 99.9% identical but there were some differences. There were the texts of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza. The KJB translators were not bound to any particular reading in any single one of these texts. They also had several other Greek manuscripts available to them as well as several foreign language Bibles.>

Not to mention the previous English Bibles, which they acknowledged as the word of God. If all the mss now known had been available to them, they would've given them due consideration.

<It is my belief that God providentially guided the KJB translators both as to the correct text and meaning.>

You repeat this statement in every BV discussion group you're in, but, when asked for PROOF, you just "shrug". When I say I believe differently, that God has providentially guided many groups of translators AS HE CHOSE, you tell me I'm wrong, but you cannot prove it. With something as serious and important as God's word, you must be able to PROVE anything you say about it. All the Onlyists have ever presented is guesswork, innuendo, double standards, pie-in-the-sky, and upon occasion, outright lies and dishonesty. The have presented NO EVIDENCE to raise their theory from the status of "myth".


<He sees the end from the beginning and knew this whole battle over an inspired Bible would take place in the last days and that there would be a falling away from the faith before the return of Christ.>

And God knows that every language changes over time, according to His will. He presents His word in each of them AS HE CHOOSES, without regard to any man-made theory such as onlyism. I believe this 111% Proof? The existence of many Bible versions covering hundreds of years in virtually every major language, keeping His word before the respective peoples in the language contemporary for their time and place. Plainly, God has done this in English, but the Onlyist tries to convince us He retired in 1611 & no longer presents His word in the language of the time. Sorry, Will, your theory is devoid of any supporting evidence.

One by one they dropped from the list till I was left with only one Book and that obviously is the Authorized King James Bible.
----------------------------------------------------------------Larry>>>>--------did you look at Heb 10:23?? There is an undeniable error there. Same with Matt 23:24.
So by your own standard, the KJV is now disqualified.
But more to the point, what you have done is shown us yet again that your mind is your own authority. You used your reasoning to come to your position. That is clear and undeniable evidence that the KJV is not your final authority; your own reasoning skills are. Your own reasoning skills led you to the KJV. "

Ok Larry, what is the undeniable error in Heb.10:23 and in Matthew 23:43?

And again, Larry, you seem to be a bit confused. My final authority is the King James Bible. I do not "correct" it or think it has been corrupted. I do not understand a lot of things in the Bible, but I believe the KJB is wholly the wordS of God.

You, on the other hand, will correct what you personally think has been corrupted in the Hebrew texts. As for the Greek, who knows what you think in the Final Authority. Which one of your Nestle-Aland texts is it now. #1 or # 4, or # 20, or the 27th? Just wait a bit and there will be another one along with a few more hundred changes. Maybe you should just go all the way and write your own bible.

Now, can you prove Hebrews 10:23 is an error or is that just your own opinion based on your limited scholarship. My "scholarship" is very limited too. That is not the point. But I doubt you know more of the original languages than the ones God used to bring forth the KJB. They went over every verse some 12 to 14 times before they decided on the finished product.

Will

Second Corinthians

2 Corinthians 4:6 "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of JESUS Christ."

The word JESUS is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus and P46. "the face of JESUS Christ" is found in the NKJV, RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, and the Holman Standard. However Vaticanus omits the word "Jesus" and has only "Christ" and so read the NASB, NIV and the RSV. Again, the Nestle-Aland text continues to change. It used to omit the word "Jesus" but not they have put it back in their texts.

Galatians 1:15 "But when it pleased GOD, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,"

Here the word GOD (THEOS) is in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. "When it pleased GOD" is the reading of the NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, NRSV, ISV, and the Holman Standard. Vaticanus, however, omits the word "God" and so the NASB from 1960 till 1977 read: "When HE was pleased...". But then in 1995 the NASB changed their version once again and it now reads "When God was pleased." For some strange reason, the ESV and the RSV still read "He" instead of "God". Again, the Nestle-Aland text used to say "He" but once again they changed it so that now the word "God" appears in their newer editions.

Galatians 4:28 "Now WE, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." The word WE is in the majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C, and is the reading of the NKJV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, and the RSV. However, Vaticanus says YOU instead of WE, and so read the NIV, NASB, and the ESV.

There are several familiar verses where the names of our Saviour have been omitted from most modern versions. For instance, in Galatians 6:15 we read: "For IN CHRIST JESUS neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

The words "Christ Jesus" are in the majority of all texts, as well as Sinaiticus, A, C, and the Syriac Peshitta. They are found in the NKJV, Young's, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third Millenium Bible and several others. But because Vaticanus omits the words "Christ Jesus" the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV omit them.

Galatians 6:17 says: "For I bear in my body the marks of the LORD Jesus" and this is the majority reading. Even Sinaiticus says "the Lord Jesus Christ", but Vaticanus omits the word "Lord" and so the RSV, NASB, NIV merely say: "I bear in my body the marks of Jesus."

Philippians 4:13 "I can do all things through CHRIST which strengtheneth me." The word "Christ" is the majority reading and is found in the Syriac Peshitta and Sinaiticus correction. But Vaticanus omits "Christ" and so the NASB, NIV, ESV etc. read: "I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

Will Kinney

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Ok Larry, what is the undeniable error in Heb.10:23 and in Matthew 23:43?

Click to expand...

IN Hebrews 10:23, elpis is mistranslated as "faith." It never means "faith." That word is pisteuo. The word in Heb 10:23 always means "hope" and you can verify that by looking at every other occurrence of it in Scripture.

In Matt 23:24, the word diulizo means "to strain out" as in filter something, not to "strain at" as in struggle to reach.

Both are clear examples of words that have been mistakenly translated. Other such errors could be demonstrated. These are obvious errors that should be corrected.

And again, Larry, you seem to be a bit confused. My final authority is the King James Bible.

Click to expand...

You are the one confused. Earlier, you talked about using your reasoning to determine which versions were really the word of God. That is exactly what I said. The KJV is not your final authority. If it were, then you would show us where the KJV tells you to believe that the KJV is the only word of God in English. Your failure to think through your position leads you to claim something that is not true.

Your own mind is your authority. By your own mind and reasoning abilities, you have decided the the KJV is teh only word of God. You do not believe that becuase God told you that. You do not believe that becuase the KJV tells you that. You believe it because it fits what your mind wants to believe.

You, on the other hand, will correct what you personally think has been corrupted in the Hebrew texts. As for the Greek, who knows what you think in the Final Authority. Which one of your Nestle-Aland texts is it now. #1 or # 4, or # 20, or the 27th? Just wait a bit and there will be another one along with a few more hundred changes. Maybe you should just go all the way and write your own bible.

Click to expand...

You know this is not true. It is merely your attempt to dodge the real issues involved.

Now, can you prove Hebrews 10:23 is an error or is that just your own opinion based on your limited scholarship.

Click to expand...

Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source agrees that this is an error. All you need to do is study and you will find that it is. It simply needs to be corrected.

Your own mind is your authority. By your own mind and reasoning abilities, you have decided the the KJV is teh only word of God. You do not believe that becuase God told you that. You do not believe that becuase the KJV tells you that. You believe it because it fits what your mind wants to believe.

Click to expand...

Poppycock!!!! The Holy Spirit bears witness to the things of God..

Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source agrees that this is an error. All you need to do is study and you will find that it is. It simply needs to be corrected.

Click to expand...

Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source is a LIAR.When are YOU,Larry,going to give the masses a perfect bible then??

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source is a LIAR.When are YOU,Larry,going to give the masses a perfect bible then?? [/QB]

Click to expand...

Very ironic. What does this say about those who translated the KJV? Were they not Greek scholars?

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
The Holy Spirit bears witness to the things of God..

Click to expand...

That is why the Holy Spirit has never borne witness to the KJVO doctrine. It is not of God. The Spirit bears witness to those things that are found in God's word. To attribute the KJVO doctrine to the Holy Spirit is to use the name of God in vain, violating the third commandment. You are using the name of God for something he would not use it for. You are attaching his name to a false teaching.

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source is a LIAR.

Click to expand...

This is hilarious. By what authority do you call these men liars?? Do you really expect us to believe that you know more than they do??? You are loopier than we gave you credit for.

When are YOU,Larry,going to give the masses a perfect bible then??

Click to expand...

I don't need to. God already did.

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Your own mind is your authority. By your own mind and reasoning abilities, you have decided the the KJV is teh only word of God. You do not believe that becuase God told you that. You do not believe that becuase the KJV tells you that. You believe it because it fits what your mind wants to believe.

Click to expand...

Poppycock!!!! The Holy Spirit bears witness to the things of God.. </font>[/QUOTE]Has anyone here said that the KJV was not the Word of God? If so, I think a vast majority of the posters here will join you in opposing them.

But my question for you is, what witness (and please cite scriptural support) has the Holy Spirit given for KJVOnlyism? This void is actually part of what I ask for in requesting historical evidence for KJVOnlyism.

The KJV has been used by God. KJVOnlyism has been used by Satan to unnecessarily divide fundamental Christians.

The KJV has been used by God. The diverse, incomplete groups of letters possessed by the 1st and 2nd century church were also used by God and differ from the KJV radically. Translations of the critical texts have been distributed worldwide and are being used by God to save souls. God has used and is using forms of His Word that are different from the KJV. English MV's are being used for the salvation and santification of millions. If this is the kind of Holy Spirit witness that you are referring to then at least be consistent.

Originally posted by Scott J:
Has anyone here said that the KJV was not the Word of God? If so, I think a vast majority of the posters here will join you in opposing them.

Click to expand...

Amen, Scott. You've nailed the "straw man" that the only sect promotes.

"IF you do not believe that the AV1611 (whichever revision) is the ONLY Word, you are somehow "opposed" to it."

Poppycock sounds nice, but pile of horse manure is more descriptive of that view.

&lt;Every Greek scholar and Greek lexical source is a LIAR.When are YOU,Larry,going to give the masses a perfect bible then??&gt;

I see. You are the be-all and end-all authority on Koine Greek. No one else knows or knew squat about it except yourself. However, there are some of us who remain skeptical. Please prove all these dudes or dudettes wrong so we pore ole folks who know only English won't be in doubt.

I reckon you're counting the AV translators among the liars, as many of them were Greek scholars. Since you wouldn't trust a Bible from Larry, and since you consider the AV translators who were Greek scholars as liars, suppose YOU give us a perfect Bible. You cannot say, "You already have one-the AV" since you consider the Greek scholars who translated its NT as liars, who translated the work of other liars such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, who compiled/collated the work of the liars who wrote the mss they used.

Scott, you say: "But if you used the same standard on the KJV that you used to eliminate all other versions then you would be forced to either conclude God did not preserve His Word (and therefore a liar) or your interpretation of His promises of preservation are flawed... because there are undeniable, irreconcilable errors in the KJV. Here are two: Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1, 2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2. Additionally, there are several places where the TR and KJV are not supported by the majority text or the oldest text".

Scott, it is readily apparent that you do not have any inspired Bible, and you have admitted such. You previously said we do not have an inspired Bible today. That is your position, so quit sounding like some bastion of the faith with some sort of standard of final authority. You are your own authority regarding what God did or did not say.

Secondly, I know there are some minority readings in the KJB, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 in the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, etc. Are you pretending now to defend the Majority or the oldest texts? Of course you're not. Your just being silly.

Thirdly, what is your problem with ..."there are undeniable, irreconcilable errors in the KJV. Here are two: Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1, 2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2."?

You think these are undeniable and irreconcilable, do you? Tell us all what is wrong with these passages and will take a look at the difference between the way a Bible believer (moi) and a Bible doubter (you) approach such matters.

Cordially,

Will K

Hi Larry, thanks for your reply. I will address them one at a time.

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Ok Larry, what is the undeniable error in Heb.10:23 and in Matthew 23:43?
------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry&gt;&gt;&gt;IN Hebrews 10:23, elpis is mistranslated as "faith." It never means "faith." That word is pisteuo. The word in Heb 10:23 always means "hope" and you can verify that by looking at every other occurrence of it in Scripture.
In Matt 23:24, the word diulizo means "to strain out" as in filter something, not to "strain at" as in struggle to reach.
Both are clear examples of words that have been mistakenly translated. Other such errors could be demonstrated. These are obvious errors that should be corrected."


OK, Larry, first with Hebrews 10:23


The Profession of Our Faith - Hebrews 10:23

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our FAITH without wavering

In support of the KJB reading of elpis as being correctly translated as faith, the following should be considered.

Even Liddell and Scott's Lexicon list one of the meanings of elpis as "Reason to expect or Believe" page 537. The same is true of Kittle's massive work who shows that elpis shades over into being synonymous with Faith. "Hope as expectation of good is closely linked with trust. This hope is thus trust." "It consists rather in general confidence in God's protection and help." page 522.

The verb form of this noun is elpizo and even the NASB and NIV have at times translated this word as to Trust. The KJB translates this verb as to Trust 18 times as well as to hope. If you trust something or someone, you believe them. It is really "gnat straining" to suggest that we are talking about the noun here and not the verb, when the very verb from which this noun comes is also translated as "to trust" in all the modern Bibles as well.

The King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as FAITH in Hebrews 10:23. The Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 9 years before the KJB, also translated this passage in the same way as the KJB. "la professión de nuestra FE (faith). So does the more recent Spanish Valera Neuvo Testamento of 1858.

Though Adam Clarke does not agree with the KJB reading, he notes in his commentary on this passage that the Old Latin (Itala), Erpen's Arabic and the ancient Ethiopic versions also read "the profession of our Faith".

Other English versions that have translated this word as Faith in Hebrews 10:23 are Noah Webster's 1933 translation. Noah Webster knew some 15 different languages including Hebrew and Greek and he made his own translation of the Bible in 1833. He changed the wording of the KJB in many places, but he left the word Faith here in Hebrews 10:23.

In addition to this, we also have the more modern translations of the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible and both of these also have elpis as Faith in Hebrews 10:23.

Several Bible commentators agree with the reading as found in the KJB. Matthew Henry, who often made textual corrections to the KJB, when commenting on this passage made no attempt to "correct" the KJB but rather said this verse means: "the duty itself - to hold fast the profession of our faith, to embrace all the truths and ways of the gospel, to get fast hold on them, and to keep that hold against all temptation and opposition."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown, who likewise often correct the KJB, say the word is elpis or hope but remark "our hope, which is indeed Faith exercised as to the future inheritance."

Another who frequently corrected the KJB was John Gill. In his commentary on Hebrews 10:23 he makes no comment correcting the reading of the KJB's "the profession of our Faith" but rather defines faith here as being "faith - either in the grace or doctrine of faith, or in the profession of both."

Isn't it more than a little hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB here for rendering this word as Faith, yet all other times as Hope? The new versions likewise do many similar things in their translations. For example, the word Faith itself. The Greek word for faith is pistis and by far most of the time the NASB and NIV translate this word as Faith. Yet both translate this same word as Pledge only one time (I Timothy 5:12) and one time only as Proof (Acts 17:31). Are they also wrong for departing from the usual sense of the word and only one time translating it with a totally different word too? And they did this not once but twice.

We can easily say that Proof, and Pledge and Faith are not at all the same things in English, yet words have different shades of meaning depending upon the context.

In Summary, we see that the evidence for the KJB being correct or, at the very least, not in error for translating elpis as Faith in Hebrews 10:23 are # 1 - the Lexicons of Liddell and Scott, and that of Kittle; # 2 - other translations both foreign and in English of the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1858, Webster's translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible, and # 3 many commentaries which make no attempt to change the reading of the KJB but rather expound it accurately just as it stands with the reading: "the profession of our Faith".

The context as well shows that Faith is the better choice here than Hope. The context is the once for all sacrifice of our Lord, the remission of our sins and no more offering to be made for sins.

In holding fast the profession (what we speak and confirm) of our faith, is it more accurate to say "I hope I am forgiven", or "I believe (have faith) that I am forgiven"? Therefore God guided the KJB translators in giving the proper full weight to this word elpis as being equivalent to faith and what we firmly trust in and confess before others.

Will Kinney

Now Larry, for your second one.

Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat". Some will tell us this is a printing error, yet I would ask how do they know this? It is mere assumption on their part. Others have had no difficulty at all with the rendering of strain at a gnat.

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

John Gill
"To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime, as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and seeds; and yet made no conscience of doing justice, and showing mercy to men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites, like them, make a great stir, and would appear very conscientious and scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times, to commit the grossest enormities, and most scandalous sins in life.

Matthew Henry
"they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the KJB reading here, though they both do so in other parts of the Scriptures. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel.

How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed? The KJB is always right.

Will Kinney

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:


Scott, it is readily apparent that you do not have any inspired Bible, and you have admitted such. You previously said we do not have an inspired Bible today.

Click to expand...

This is a lie. I have said that the words of translations are not inspired.

That is your position,

Click to expand...

No. That is your dishonest mischaracterization of my position.

so quit sounding like some bastion of the faith with some sort of standard of final authority.

Click to expand...

I accept the Bible as my final authority for all matters of faith and practice. Nowhere does the Bible, KJV or otherwise, teach what you believe.

You are your own authority regarding what God did or did not say.

Click to expand...

No. I accept as authoritative everything He said. What you say however is an entirely different matter.

Secondly, I know there are some minority readings in the KJB, but for every one in the KJB there are at least 20 in the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, etc.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But the minority readings in the critical text translations have a evidence based reason. Those in the KJV do not- at least not that anyone has demonstrated.

Are you pretending now to defend the Majority or the oldest texts?

Click to expand...

I think both are valuable and preserved by the providence of God. I personally think the words of the original exist between the two and not in one or the other. I think that piety and other factors caused the BT to become conflated. I think there is evidence that earlier copies contained more scribal errors.

Of course you're not. Your just being silly.

Click to expand...

Actually, I like the NKJV for this very reason. It attempts to represent all three when there are significant variants.

Thirdly, what is your problem with ..."there are undeniable, irreconcilable errors in the KJV. Here are two: Luke 4:18 v Isaiah 61:1,

Click to expand...

Jesus was reading from an OT scroll (scripture, the Word of God). The text tells us when He stopped reading. The portion He read from Isaiah 61 disagrees with the text used by the KJV translators. One or the other or both passages are in error in the KJV.

2 Kings 8:26 v 2 Chronicles 22:2."?

Click to expand...

These two passages are exact parallel accounts of Ahaziah's ascendance to the throne. One says he was 22. The other says he was 42.

You think these are undeniable and irreconcilable, do you? Tell us all what is wrong with these passages and will take a look at the difference

Click to expand...

OK... just so long as you are willing to allow the same logic/standard/rules of reconciliation to be used for MV's as the ones you use for the KJV. If you are a Bible believer, you should have no problem with using fair "balances" in a marketplace of ideas.

between the way a Bible believer (moi) and a Bible doubter (you) approach such matters.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the Bible. I doubt KJVO's and, in particular, you. The Bible, my final authority, doesn't teach what you believe and want others to believe. However, the Bible does demonstrate that things other than the KJV were considered the Word of God. That conflicts with version onlyism.

What God leaves unsaid... should be left unsaid. It is a matter of Christian liberty. I have used the KJV my whole life and have never belonged to a church that used another version as its standard. However, this is a matter of preference on the part of individuals, churches, and pastors. No one has a right to put words in God's mouth the way KJVO's do.

BTW Will, I actually agree with you on the gnat thing. I have personally "strained" to swallow food that was not appealing. I have also "strained" out gnats that found their way into my mouth at picnics.

In either case, I was against swallowing the gnat and so the illustration is just as valid one way as the other.

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The context as well shows that Faith is the better choice here than Hope. The context is the once for all sacrifice of our Lord, the remission of our sins and no more offering to be made for sins.

Click to expand...

So you get to change the word that God inspired?? Wow, I didn't know you had that authority. God said "elpis," not "pisteuon." We should stick with what God said and put aside your vain wrangling.

It is interesting how you cite all these scholars you so despise though ... You undermine your own position.

Therefore God guided the KJB translators in giving the proper full weight to this word elpis as being equivalent to faith and what we firmly trust in and confess before others.

Click to expand...

What a shame he didn't give that same guidance to the man who wrote the book of Hebrews.

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat."

Click to expand...

All except that pesky little thing like "meaning." Words have them. Strain at is not the same as strain out. Period. To "strain at" something means to struggle to reach it. They were not struggling to reach gnats. The point of the parable is that Christ was condemning them for straining out little gnats, i.e., paying attention to little things while swallowing camels, i.e., not paying attention to big things.

The very story itself has an application to this issue in that the KJVOs strain out all these little issues while ignoring the big picture of the doctrine of Scripture.

However, in the end, the word means what it does. Sorry ... I am not the one who wrote the word. But we should at least translate it properly.