Does a Multitude of Modern English Bible Versions Promote a Violation of 1 Cor 1:10

[JD731]

Local churches in Greece are instructed from Greek Bibles.

God does not require English-speaking believers to be instructed from only the KJV.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Believers are at liberty in Christ to esteem which Bible translation that they may prefer, but these personal preferences, opinions, and reasonings of men would not be actual Bible doctrine or a doctrine of God.

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor. 3:17). The truth shall make believers free (John 8:32). Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made believers free (Gal. 5:1). Mere personal, individual, or subjective preferences should not be permitted to become possibly a stumbling-block for other believers (Rom. 14:13, 1 Cor. 8:9).

Responding to your last sentence in your comments.

Then why are your personal, individual, and subjective opinions a hindrance to the freedom of believers who disagrees with you? I would not be asking this question if what you claim God teaches is clear cut in the scriptures as you confidently state.

Are you Conan?

 

[Logos1560]

Then why are your personal, individual, and subjective opinions a hindrance to the freedom of believers who disagrees with you?

They are not a hindrance.

My understanding of the Scriptures does not hinder the freedom of believers who disagree with me. I would encourage them to present a positive, clear, sound, convincing, true, and scriptural case for why they disagree.

Your own personal, unconvincing interpretations are not as clear cut in the scriptures as you confidently may try to claim. You also seem to fail to convince other believers that you are right in your claims concerning Scripture.

 

[JD731]

They are not a hindrance.

My understanding of the Scriptures does not hinder the freedom of believers who disagree with me. I would encourage them to present a positive, clear, sound, convincing, true, and scriptural case for why they disagree.

Your own personal, unconvincing interpretations are not as clear cut in the scriptures as you confidently may try to claim. You also seem to fail to convince other believers that you are right in your claims concerning Scripture.

Your views come almost entirely from the words of the scholarly men whom you constantly quote. You believe what you preach because they are your teachers. Their arguments are your arguments. You do not understand that we are warned by the scriptures of this type of worldly wisdom.

Secondly, one cannot expect to convince many from the scriptures at this time. This is the last days that the apostle warned the church about when men would have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof. The will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears and would turn their ears from the truth and be turned unto fables. There are few that believes that. Take a look at this statement that is profound.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in you mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:
25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

I wanted you to see this passage in the context and show you in verse 23 that a condition exists for God's continued grace to the gentiles and how later Paul would write to Timothy and catalog the conditions when gentiles will no longer believe and deceive while being deceived. It just happens that in the last 120 years no Christian is sure about the word of God and that they have access to it because we have over 100 different books in one language saying they can be trusted to get people to heaven although they are not the word of God.

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Paul now speaks to the gentiles after having been speaking to them who know the Law of Moses since Ro 7:1

Still speaking to gentiles he says this;

Ro 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

The fullness of the gentiles church will be complete when they will no longer believe and God will then cut them, the gentiles, off from the root of the good olive tree. He cut the natural branches off so he could graft in the wild olive tree against nature (one usually grafts the good into the wild) and the warning is that some day they will be cut off for the same reason, unbelief.

Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Very few believes this these days because the mysteries of God are not taught in the denominations that have risen up to teach deception. Read 2 Cor 11 here.

I am not going to continue with you saying I am wrong and me saying you are wrong. It does not honor our Lord.

 

[Logos1560]

Your views come almost entirely from the words of the scholarly men whom you constantly quote.

Your opinion is clearly incorrect. My scripturally-based points come from Scripture as translated in the KJV. As a believer, I have read the KJV over 50 years, and from its overall teaching, I present my points with the scripture references from the KJV that support them.

When I am establishing historical facts and evidence, I quote and document the sources that support them. My facts concerning editions of the KJV comes from my first-hand examination and comparison of over 500 editions of the KJV. I probably have over 100 varying editions of the KJV from the 1611 edition until today's thirty or so varying editions. My facts from pre-1611 English Bibles comes from first-hand examination and comparison of them.

I quote the early English Bibles and their translators including the KJV translators so would you suggest that the Scriptures warn us against their wisdom and knowledge that they used in their translating?

Modern KJV-only wisdom/reasoning would seem to be the worldly wisdom since it shows partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611 in contradiction to the wisdom from God above that is without partiality (James 3:16).

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But if we want to have one English translation in the English speaking world today then it has to be the NIV as it is the most common English translation today (and has been for a decade).

This year is the 50th anniversary of the NIV. The NT was released in 1973. The whole canon was published in 1978. In its various incarnations it has been around for half a century.
In contrast the KJV, in its various incarnations took about 140 years to not only be accepted, but beloved.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Let us consider the New Testament. We have several versions, such as the TR, the MT and the CT.

Those are not versions. Those are text-types.

 

[Logos1560]

It seems that the new KJV-only interpretation or understanding of 1 Corinthians 1:10 would make it conflict with or contradict other truths that the apostle Paul stated in Scripture.
For example, the Scriptures do not actually require or command that all believers speak the same thing concerning eating meat that had been offered to idols.
1 Corinthians 1:10 should not be interpreted in such a way that makes it contradict the Christian liberty that we have in Christ.

1 Corinthians 8:8-9
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Romans 14:3-6
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord, and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks, and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

 

[JonC]

This year is the 50th anniversary of the NIV. The NT was released in 1973. The whole canon was published in 1978. In its various incarnations it has been around for half a century.
In contrast the KJV, in its various incarnations took about 140 years to not only be accepted, but beloved.

Tradition plays a major role in acceptance.

The KJV was the only reasonable choice for many (the Church of England effectively banned the publishing of the Geneva Bible because they perceived the Geneva Bible as undermining the English monarchy). It became a beloved tradition.

Many older people (50 or older) memorized verses as children from the KJV.

Antiquated language even found it's way into prayer and sermons.

I am unaware of anything Christians resist more than change in tradition.


But the KJV no longer serves it's intended purpose. It is not a good translation to communicate God's Word in the vernacular.


It is good that the NIV has usurped the KJV (the NIV may not be my go to translation....I'm not sure I actually have a go to translation).

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But the KJV no longer serves it's intended purpose. It is not a good translation to communicate God's Word in the vernacular.


It is good that the NIV has usurped the KJV (the NIV may not be my go to translation....I'm not sure I actually have a go to translation).

The Geneva translation was the most popular English Bible translation until the mid-17th century.

Yes, a good Bible translation in any language has to be in the language of the people --in the vernacular. The NIV has been the logical and popular translation to do just that in the English language --not only in native English-speaking countries --but internationally, i.e. the New International Version. Its closest rival is the NLT which certainly puts English in the colloquial form. That doesn't mean using street slang, but recognizably standard English. The ESV and NKJV are examples of translations that do not fit the bill.

 

[37818]

Yes, a good Bible translation bin any language has to be in the language of the people --in the vernacular. The NIV has been the logical and popular translation to do just that in the English language --not only in native English-speaking countries --but internationally, i.e. the New International Version. Its closest rival is the NLT which certainly puts English in the colloquial form. That doesn't mean using street slang, but recognizably standard English. The ESV and NKJV are examples of translations that do not fit the bill.

It is sad when worse Bible translations pass for good.

 

[Deacon]

It is sad when worse Bible translations pass for good.

It is good that people are able to read God’s word with understanding.

Now we answer our adversaries. We do not deny—in fact, we affirm and assert—that the very poorest translation of the Bible into English, produced by men of our profession … contains the word of God—no, is the word of God. [Preface of the Original KJV]​

Rob

 

[Conan]

Those are not versions. Those are text-types.

Those are different editions of Greek New Testaments.

 

[JD731]

There are tares mixed in with the wheat and one cannot tell the difference until the harvest. Before the wheat is gathered into the barn at the end of this age, Jesus says his angels will gather the tares into bundles to be burned. However the bundling will happen before the wheat is gathered and then the bundles will be burned in the fire. The great tribulation is said to be the fire that will burn up every offensive thing in this world as the water destroyed all in Noah's day and God will begin anew with few left in the world, relatively speaking, but the residue all saved.

Isa 24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Context (that most on here will not believe if they have 400 more translations into English)

Isa 24:1 ¶ Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.
3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.
4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

I doubt there is a single person who comments on this web site who believes this.

Here is what Jesus said about this age we are living in now when it comes to and end in apostasy and his judgement of it.


Mt 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The word "world" is the word <165> Aion = age. The fire is the tribulational fires described in most of the OT prophets.

Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You fellows are promoting paraphrases and thought for thought translations(?) and nothing about God's word seems to be holy.

Mt 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

You guys are not making the kingdom better with the leaven, which is corruption, you are just hastening the complete leavening of the whole lump.

So, after about 2k years of the history of the age, we gets scores of new translations and paraphrases in a very short span of years.

The warning is clear and the end is near.

Ga 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead and is alive evermore and will save anyone who repents and believes. Amen, Hallelujah.

This is worth giving some thought to.

 

[Logos1560]

Context (that most on here will not believe if they have 400 more translations into English)

Is your claimed context in effect a strawman since likely no one reads 400 English translations or even 100 English translations?

Perhaps a few Bible collectors collect a large number of Bible translations, but they likely only read very few of them if more than one or two.

There may be only six to twelve English Bible translations that are widely distributed and read by very many people. Except for possibly some Bible teachers and preachers, very few may read and compare more than two or three or so English Bible translations. You do not prove that having more than one English Bible translation is wrong.

Ten or so would be around the same number of English Bible translations that was available before an additional one was made in 1611. If your argument were valid, it would seem to condemn the making of yet another English Bible translation in 1611. The early English Bible translators including the makers of the KJV commended reading more than one English Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

You fellows are promoting paraphrases and thought for thought translations(?) and nothing about God's word seems to be holy.

Do you suggest that those renderings in the KJV that are thought-for-thought or that are paraphrases are wrong and not holy?

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version, p. 230). Perhaps because of his love and bias for the KJV, Glenn Conjurske maintained that “it was proper—or at any rate excusable—to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.). Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 231). Would an admission of some paraphrasing [or dynamic equivalents] in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the KJV be a serious problem for inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning?

Are KJV-only arguments that involve use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, false dilemma, guilt-by-association, post hoc, etc. true and holy?

 

[JD731]

Do you suggest that those renderings in the KJV that are thought-for-thought or that are paraphrases are wrong and not holy?

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, who was a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern English versions and who admitted his own bias for the KJV, acknowledged: “I grant that there is too much paraphrasing in the King James Version, more especially in the Old Testament. But even this may be excused, at least in part” (Olde Paths, October, 1997, p. 236; Bible Version, p. 230). Perhaps because of his love and bias for the KJV, Glenn Conjurske maintained that “it was proper—or at any rate excusable—to retain a certain amount of paraphrase from the older versions” (Ibid.). Glenn Conjurske claimed: “Much of the paraphrasing in the King James Version is retained from Tyndale and Coverdale” (Ibid.). Even though he is critical of the NKJV, Glenn Conjurske admitted: “The New King James Version has doubtless removed some paraphrasing which was in the old version” (Ibid.; Bible Version, p. 231). Would an admission of some paraphrasing [or dynamic equivalents] in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the KJV be a serious problem for inconsistent, unjust KJV-only reasoning?

Are KJV-only arguments that involve use of fallacies such as begging the question, special pleading, false dilemma, guilt-by-association, post hoc, etc. true and holy?

Glen Conjurske is not God and his musings are opinions. The curse is real and I predicted that few on this board, if any, will believe it is. God is not giving more light to apostates. He promises judgement and darkness.

I will post a thread later to talk about what the word of God is.

 

[Logos1560]

Glen Conjurske is not God and his musings are opinions. .

No one claimed that he was God. Your subjective musings are opinions. You do not apply the same measures/standards to the translation decisions in the KJV that you inconsistently and unjustly attempt to apply to other English Bibles.

The truth is that the 1611 KJV is not a literal, every word, word-for-word English Bible translation. According to the makers of the KJV themselves in their 1611 marginal notes, they gave examples of the many places where they omitted giving any English word/rendering for original-language words of Scripture. The makers of the KJV made the same type changes to the pre-1611 English Bibles that the makers of the NKJV made to the KJV.

Concerning 1 Samuel 14:14, Dave Brunn maintained that “the KJV translators added an expanded, interpretive clause to their translation” and that “they translated the Hebrew word for ‘yoke’ as ‘acre …which a yoke of oxen might plow” (One Bible, p. 57). Could 1 Samuel 14:14 be a place where the KJV kept part of an addition from the Bishops’ Bible? The 1568 Bishops’ Bible rendered the last half of 1 Samuel 14:14 as follows: “within the compass as it were about an half acre of land which two [oxen plow].”

E. W. Bullinger claimed that the KJV’s rendering of 1 Kings 20:33 “is a loose paraphrase” (Figures of Speech, p. 116).

Concerning Psalm 69:22, William Barrick wrote: “In this brief text consisting of six Hebrew words, the [KJV] translators expanded them into a very different form utilizing twenty-two words (nine of which are additions not found in the Hebrew forms either lexically or grammatically). This particular example of expansion is paraphrastic” (Understanding Bible Translation, pp. 61-62).

Concerning 2 Thessalonians 3:5, Glenn Conjurske asserted: “We have a paraphrase in the King James Version, which instead of ‘the patience of Christ’ reads, ‘the patient waiting for Christ.’ This is in fact a double paraphrase, for even it were legitimate to turn ‘patience’ into ‘patient waiting,’ we ought to read ‘the patient waiting of Christ,’ rather than ‘for Christ.’ It is his patience—‘the patience of Christ’—which is spoken of, not ours” (Olde Paths, April, 1995, p. 77). This rendering in the KJV did not come from Tyndale. Here the KJV followed or kept a rendering introduced in the 1541 edition of the Great Bible and also kept in the Bishops’ Bible. Concerning this verse, John Eadie maintained that “in rendering the last clause ‘into the patient waiting for Christ,’ after Beza’s ‘expectationem,’ they shrank from the real translation and put it into the margin, ‘into the patience of Christ’” (English Bible, Vol. II, p. 279).

Dave Brunn asserted: “When the King James translators translated units of money in the New Testament, they carefully considered their target audience—seventh century citizens of England. This is another example of dynamic equivalence or meaning-based translation” (One Bible, p. 125).

At 1 Corinthians 10:19, the renderings "offered to images" in Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Whittingham's and "sacrificed to idols" in the Geneva Bible seem to have been combined or conflated in the Bishops' and KJV ["offered in sacrifice to idols"]. Similar renderings at 1 Corinthians 8:4 in Tyndale's and Matthew's ["dedicated unto idols"], in Coverdale's and Great ["offered unto idols"], and in Whittingham's and Geneva ["sacrificed unto idols"] could be said to be conflated or combined in the Bishops' and KJV ["offered in sacrifice unto idols"].

 

[Logos1560]

There may be some English Bibles that are more word-for-word and more literal than the KJV is. Three possible examples would be the 1862 Young's Literal Translation, Green's Literal Translation in his 1986 The Interlinear Bible, and the 2020 Literal Standard Version (a revision of Young's Literal Translation). These English Bibles sometimes give English words for original-language words of Scripture that are omitted in the KJV. The 1611 edition's marginal notes confirm these omissions.

1 Kings 8:47 [1611 margin—“Heb. bring back to their heart”]

Yet if they turn again unto their heart [1560 Geneva Bible]

Yet if they turn again unto their hearts [1568 Bishops’ Bible]

Yet if they shall bethink themselves [1611 KJV]

And they have turned it back unto their heart [YLT]

and they have turned their heart back [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

And they have turned [it] back to their heart [LSV]


1 Kings 10:13 [1611 margin—“Hebr. according to the hands of king Solomon”]

gave her with his own hand [1537 Matthew’s Bible]

gave her of a free will with his own hand [1540 Great Bible; 1568 Bishops’ Bible]

gave her of his royal bounty [1611 KJV]

gave to her as a memorial of king Solomon [YLT]

gave to her as a memorial of King Solomon [LSV]


1 Kings 10:24 [1611 margin—“Heb. sought the face of”]

all the world sought to see Salomon [1560 Geneva Bible]

all the earth sought to Solomon [1611 KJV]

all the earth is seeking the presence of Solomon [YLT] [LSV]

all the earth was seeking the presence of Solomon [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

all the earth sought the presence of Solomon [NKJV]


1 Kings 13:33 [1611 margin—“Heb. returned and made”]

but turned back, and made [1568 Bishops’ Bible]

but made again [1611 KJV]

and turneth back, and maketh [YLT]

but turned again, and made [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

and turns back, and makes [LSV]


1 Kings 16:12 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV]

by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]


1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]

by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]

by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

by Elijah [1611 KJV]

by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible] [LSV]

 

[Mikoo]

Glen Conjurske is not God and his musings are opinions. The curse is real and I predicted that few on this board, if any, will believe it is. God is not giving more light to apostates. He promises judgement and darkness.

JD731 is not God and his musings are opinions.


I will post a thread later to talk about what the word of God is.

My NASB95 is the Word of God. And your 'musings and opinions' won't change that.

 

[JD731]

There may be some English Bibles that are more word-for-word and more literal than the KJV is. Three possible examples would be the 1862 Young's Literal Translation, Green's Literal Translation in his 1986 The Interlinear Bible, and the 2020 Literal Standard Version (a revision of Young's Literal Translation). These English Bibles sometimes give English words for original-language words of Scripture that are omitted in the KJV. The 1611 edition's marginal notes confirm these omissions.

Literal what? There is no concensus among scholars about the original language texts and there is no one alive today that one can ask, except God. He was alive when the Scriptures were written and he is still alive today. We can ask him. He is a constant and everlasting companion to the saved, he said. If we were to ask him and he were to answer out loud he would say I have already addressed that question in the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians and I am requiring that you receive it by faith.

Here is a prayer from a man who was chosen to speak the mind of God for God and this is what he prayed.

15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

This prayer is in the context of the theme of this epistle, which is "the mystery of Christ" which is revealed in the epistle and defined in Eph 3:6 and it is the inclusion of the gentiles along with Jewish believers in this body he is forming in this age, which is taken from the physical body of the crucified Christ and becomes both the body and the bride of Christ.

The answer for scholarly men who have not the teacher from God, the life giving Spirit, dwelling in them, is to write more and more Bibles. If one listens to what they say, they will tell us that is the reason for writing them. They say one can understand them better if one has many of them and compares them with one anonther.

What kind of logic and reasoning is this?

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Jn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Words of Jesus Christ are spirit and life? Who would have known except we were told?