Finally the truth about the KJB

[Precepts]

Hank, just for clarification, if I may try. The English is superior to the Hebrew, simply because Hebrew is not used even by the Jews of today. The Koine Greek, not "koine", is not used today either.

I have not said the English is superior to the Original Autogarphs, but I have said English is superior in the KJB over even the "Americanized English" of today, even over what those who study Greek have tried to explain in English today. This is simple understandiing, (that which I am only capable), yet gaining understanding and knowledge in the process of study, the languages used today have lost the original meanings of our words through the efforts of translation. I will even go on to say this, the Originals have even greater meaning than even the English used in the KJB is able to give us in the reality of the Word of God's inexhaustability due to it's "being alive". There is much more to the Bible than meets the eye.

The failure of men is to view and criticize His Word from the natural standpoint and able to only define at face value.

Have you ever looked at the same picture on a regular basis, and then looked again years later to see something you've never actually noticed before? That is the "living Word" in that "picture". I can't say that about the supposed "finality" of mv's, but I can say the Final Authority is in the KJB due to it's being Alive and Well.

You won't have to look years later in the KJB, it can be as often as daily.

Call it my view alone if you may, but I see the mv's as only a dead carcas being rolled over and over trying to see whether there is any life left in it.

The A 1611 KJB is the most Beautiful and Eloquent Bible of any day, and the ONLY Bible in our English language. The rest are at best good commentaries.

 

[HankD]

Call it my view alone if you may, but I see the mv's as only a dead carcass being rolled over and over trying to see whether there is any life left in it.

The A 1611 KJB is the most Beautiful and Eloquent Bible of any day, and the ONLY Bible in our English language. The rest are at best good commentaries.

I can agree to an extent.

The original giving by "god-breathing" of the NT Word of God by the Spirit of God was (as many continue to point out) codified in "koine" Greek or the language of life and not classical, poetic or "beautiful and eloquent" as you point out is the style of the KJHB.
To me this proof argument of "beautiful" or "eloquent" or "dignified" quality of a translation as a kind of heavenly stamp of approval upon it is based upon a misplaced piety. That all God does is "beautiful".

Here is what is said of the living Word :

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

However, I agree with you that the KJB is a book unsurpassed in the English language in terms of beauty and eloquence.

But QS, these qualities are subjective. So, if one sees the NASB or the Douay-Rheims or the NWT for that matter in this same subjective light as you see the KJHB do these translations also get YOUR stamp of approval?

For over 1000 years the Church of Rome and their children (such as the Church of England) poured the same kind of praise and pronouncements (with hell-fire attached for dissenters) upon the Latin Vulgate as modern KJVO folk do the 1611KJV (and in fact the Church of England used English translations of the Vulgate as Scripture pre-1611).

Through functional and some dynamic equivalence we can emulate the will of God to bring His Word to each generation aimed at the “koine” class of people and this is happening as we speak (type)

While I disagree with the W&H theories ” (they are yet to be conclusively proven IMO) of “shortest”, “oldest” and “most difficult” constitutes the desired reading of a TR variant, those who follow after this theory have done far more to disseminate the Word of God to the 21st century English speaker than the divisive and often venomous KJVO.

The KJV translators also putting their stamp of approval upon even the “meanest” of the translations and calling them the Word of God so they themselves were not "ONLY"ists.

HankD

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I have not said the English is superior to the Original Autogarphs, but I have said English is superior in the KJB over even the "Americanized English" of today, even over what those who study Greek have tried to explain in English today.

From another page, QS says, "English can define Koine Greek, but Koine Greek doesn't define English." and "Why does anyone need to go to the Greek to find what the English already says?"

I think it is clear what he things about which language is superior.

 

[Precepts]

However, I agree with you that the KJB is a book unsurpassed in the English language in terms of beauty and eloquence.

Need any more be said? Why settle for something less when we 've got it all right there in the KJB? Even more than anyone will ever be able to explain in man's terms.

That will answer your next question in the previous post.

You know, Hank, I look occasionally at other versions and wonder why I ever wasted such precious time and find myself having to redeem that which I lost to eternity past.

I don't mind a bit discussing the topics, and I certainly love the opportunity and the God given ability to express what he's shown me. I'll admit "spicing it up" at times, it sort gives the opposition the chance to fume over what they think and realize the truth the AV 1611 KJB is the Perfect Bible, unsurpassed, unequalled,undaunted, even by the least to the most disputers of the Bible.

 

[Precepts]

I think it is clear what he things about which language is superior.

Maybe you should have typed that in Greek and you wouldn't have made the typo.

Again, tell me one word or subject in the Greek that cannot be defined in English? This is the second time I ask you this, you still haven't answered. Must be the English IS superior to the Greek.

It is clear that your suppositional knowledge of Greek is wallowing in the mire of pride.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think it is clear what he things about which language is superior.

Maybe you should have typed that in Greek and you wouldn't have made the typo.

Again, tell me one word or subject in the Greek that cannot be defined in English? This is the second time I ask you this, you still haven't answered. Must be the English IS superior to the Greek.

It is clear that your suppositional knowledge of Greek is wallowing in the mire of pride. </font>[/QUOTE]John mentioned two words for love that were unable to be expressed accurately in the KJV, and Hank added a word for wept that was unable to be expressed accurately. How many more do you need?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 2 Peter 2:10-12, were you to comply with it,
IMHO, you would have written "Westcott and Hort".

I suppose "dignity" is in the eyes of the beholder.

If w/h believed the Bible they wouldn't have spent such ill-directed energies to re-translate the MSS, and only the Greek, to dispute that which is already proven tried and true. Their maliciousness is identified in their re-inventing the methods they alone used to re-define.

Sorry, the cliche' is "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder". There is NOTHING beautiful about the mv's, unless you think britney or madonna are worth kissing, I do not. </font>[/QUOTE]So what wil do with youir MV. At one point in time you would have been labeled as a heretic. There were those who thought a translation should have never been done. To do so could have meant you would have been burned at the stake.

So if older is always better we would not have any translations.

 

[Precepts]

Scott, your hypothesis is totally that of a lunatic. Your reason is a little more than stupendous. You say the three all together words are somehow undefined in the KJB, but then yall try to tell us all what they mean in English.

I'll put it plain in simple terminology:

Do you know what "love" means in the Greek? LOVE.

Do you kno what "wept" means in the Greek? WEPT.

Why do I need it explained in the Greek when I already know what it means in the English? And how can you preposterly allude that I don't know what they mean when you think you can tell me in English?

You babble, but I suppose you learned that from the tower?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think it is clear what he things about which language is superior.

Maybe you should have typed that in Greek and you wouldn't have made the typo.

Again, tell me one word or subject in the Greek that cannot be defined in English? This is the second time I ask you this, you still haven't answered. Must be the English IS superior to the Greek.

It is clear that your suppositional knowledge of Greek is wallowing in the mire of pride. </font>[/QUOTE]The distinction between the words translated love in verses 15 and 17 of John 21.

The distinction between de and alla

 

[Precepts]

So what wil do with youir MV. At one point in time you would have been labeled as a heretic. There were those who thought a translation should have never been done. To do so could have meant you would have been burned at the stake.

So if older is always better we would not have any translations.

To the first part in answer: I would die with glory in my soul.

On the second, your allusions have over-run your ability to reason. You confuse me with some one else you've had this type of discussion before. "Older" is not better, neither is the "latest" edition, but Perfect is BEST. You'll find that in the AV 1611 KJB. Disagree all you want to allude to all sorts of references for discrepencies, but there will always remain the KJB, The Pure Word of God, even when the world has it's 400,000 versions.

 

[Precepts]

The distinction between de and alla

O.K., gb, explain what the distinctions mean?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
[QB] Scott, your hypothesis is totally that of a lunatic. Your reason is a little more than stupendous. You say the three all together words are somehow undefined in the KJB, but then yall try to tell us all what they mean in English.

It's one held by orthodoxy. I'm sorry that you think so lowly of that. You'll notice that I didn't say that they are undefined but that they are not "expressed accurately."

I'll put it plain in simple terminology:

Do you know what "love" means in the Greek? LOVE.

But what kind of love? How do I know that Peter and Jesus are not talking about sexual love? There are different types of love that are used int he Greek, and the English should accurately represent those different types as best as it can.

Do you kno what "wept" means in the Greek? WEPT.

But what kind of weeping? How was Christ's weeping different from that of the people two verses earlier. There are different types of weeping that are used in the Greek, and the English should accurately represent those different types as best as it can.

Why do I need it explained in the Greek when I already know what it means in the English?

Because your knowledge is incomplete. Is it not better to understand 100% than understand 50%

And how can you preposterly allude that I don't know what they mean when you think you can tell me in English?

All you have to do is go to a basic concordance and look up words like eros, agape, and philos and see just how different those words for "love" are.

You babble, but I suppose you learned that from the tower?

I learned from studying the Scriptures. Why do you continue to blaspheme God's word by saying such things about what He has inspired?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The distinction between de and alla

O.K., gb, explain what the distinctions mean? </font>[/QUOTE]Both are adversative conjunctions and translated in English as "but". One takes a sharper turn than the other.

The difference between understanding the Greek and understanding the English is like walking into a room lit by a 40 watt light bulb and then being lit by a 500 watt light bulb. The Greek is much more specific. English is very ambiguous.

For example: How are you today? Is it plural or singular. Maybe context might tell in English. But in the Greek you know.

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Scott, your hypothesis is totally that of a lunatic.

Nice argumentative tactics there. Rather than understand the issues just engage in name calling.

Do you know what "love" means in the Greek? LOVE.

The Greek has more than one word for love. Is the distinction between them always communicated in your English translation? Not always. If you read John 21, in the KJV, you would be under the impression that only one word was used for love because two different Greek words are translated as the same English word -- "love."

What the distinction between is is a matter of interpretation. That two different words are used by John and not by the KJV is a matter of fact.

While we can define both Greek words, it is not a "word for word" process. It is to translate the idea contained in the word.

Why do I need it explained in the Greek when I already know what it means in the English?

Because your translation and the translators who wrote it may or may not have it right. They are fallible men practicing the age old art of interpretation. As time has passed, we have learned more and more about these words and have come to understand more precisely what they mean.

The "alla" and "de" is a better example because the difference is clear in Greek; it usually not communicated at all in English. As much as you are dogmatic on this, how did you not know that? Or are you telling us that you have dogmatic opinions on something that you are not well versed in?? I would think someone who is dogmatic on a topic has taken the time to educate themselves fully about the topic.

The problem is, as Will and so many others have shown us, is that a STrong's concordance is not an adequate education in this field. People think they are experts with answers when in reality they don't even know what the questions are. As always, my appeal to everyone is to learn what the real issues are before going out on a limb from which your only recovery is an embarrassing admission of error. Will has already left himself there several times. Unfortunately, he compounds it by not being able to bring himself to admit it. We can all do better.

 

[Precepts]

I learned from studying the Scriptures. Why do you continue to blaspheme God's word by saying such things about what He has inspired?

No, I don't believe I did. I "blasphemed" yopur word, but not the Lord's.

BTW, are you sure you're not really catholic posting asa Baptist in a Baptist only forum?

How is it the English of the KJB is not definable as to accurately translate the Greek when that is what the both of us have done all along? Hmmm? Methinkest thou is purely defiled in thy boast of thy knowledge and rather puffy. You just can't seem to understand what you are doing. Every time I ask you to tell me what the Greek says in English you do so in English, now if you go to speaking in tongues you will have become a barbarian to me and I will not be edified.

So we're left with two possibilities, either the English can tell us what the Greek means or you'll die trying.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Matt. 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

But that is not all! How about the readability. What English tense is being rendered here? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? And what is the difference between being "an hungered" (etc.) and being "hungry."? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question?

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is confused and radically obscure. Anglican Bishop (1613-1667) Jeremy Taylor gave us this translation, "he was afterwards an hungry."

The NASB is very plain and easy to read, "He then became hungry," a very accurate translation of the Greek tense here, the active aorist indicative.

 

[Precepts]

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

1. "commentaries" at least he used the right word

2. "Revised" standard version? Why do I need to understand the rsv when I have the KJB? He telleth a lie, I am satisfied with the English of the KJB.

3.Your friend is wrong, there is not yet one thing said in this critical discussion I haven't been able to understand, look up, yes, understand, yes.

4. He's never heard me preach, therefore he doesn't know that to be true. Hypothesis of the lunatic.

5. The Word of God is of no private interpetation, the guy is a heretic.

6. Anything related in O.T. or N.T. is perfectly translatyable in English, that already laid before us in the AV 1611 KJB. English which I speak, that which I understand. The guy is still wrong and alluding to a hypothesis rooted in the antics of the prideful.

7. The Hebrew language died at 7000 words, the English is still growing in number, but not in meaning, except those given to represent new inventions and discoveries of process. Even those processes are found in the AV 1611 KJB under applicable headings.

8. Each of those Hebrew and Greek are easily and accurately expanded upon in the English. English is the superior language to both.

9. A stupid and prideful statement considering anything the man has to say to an English speaking audience will only understand what is said in English. The statement is preposterous. If he is going to talk about wasting time, speaking in Hebrew and Greek would certainly be fruitless. Those two languages are as even more dead than Latin, all three MUST be explained in English to be understood to English speaking peoples, or otherwise in the language they understand. The Apostle Paul dealt with the Corinthian Church rathjer harshly and in much detail concerning the use of tongues.

10. I would much rather he teach me in English what he knows in English and not try to teach me he knows Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Every time I ask you to tell me what the Greek says in English you do so in English,

Isn't the reason for this obvious? You speak English. If you spoke You ask for a definition of a Greek word. What language do you want him to give it to you in?? Of course, he will give it in English. That seem really obvious ...

 

[Precepts]

Nice argumentative tactics there. Rather than understand the issues just engage in name calling

Didn't call anybody a name, but if the shoe fits wear it.

The Greek has more than one word for love. Is the distinction between them always communicated in your English translation? Not always. If you read John 21, in the KJV, you would be under the impression that only one word was used for love because two different Greek words are translated as the same English word -- "love."

The English has more than one definition for love. to know what that definition is will be found in context. I would never have come to the conclusion that "love" in John 21 meant all the same, especially since Jesus is not redundent in any of His teaching.

it is not a "word for word" process

Exactly, that is why context is the mv killer

It is to translate the idea contained in the word.

Exactly, that's what the context found in the AV 1611 KJB does.

Because your translation and the translators who wrote it may or may not have it right. They are fallible men practicing the age old art of interpretation

Then they were artistic genuises because they did so with perfection that cannot be matched to give us exactly what the Spirit inspired and not limited to just the simple words but are the living words of God. IOW, they have it right.

As time has passed, we have learned more and more about these words and have come to understand more precisely what they mean.

As time passed and learning increased, then why is man living less and less like there is a God? Your hypothesis is error and I believe the scripture that says man is ever learning but failing to come to the knowledge of the truth. If this wasn't true, and what you believe is the case, then why is it the observation made by any man? There is a lot more "educated" dummies in this world who know how to process information yet don't know hom to think. wh6y aren't these "learned" men out winning souls since they know and understand so much about the Hebrew and the Greek instead thney sit around and teach and boast how much they know? See ya at the ACBRM! 7:00 pm 316 Pryor St. Atalanta, Ga. Feb 3, 2004.

The "alla" and "de" is a better example because the difference is clear in Greek; it usually not communicated at all in English.

Then what praytell language are you speaking in? I thought you said it isn't usually communicated at all in English?

People think they are experts with answers when in reality they don't even know what the questions are.

Then how is it you are able to ask these questions? I don't see so much expertise in what you believe, rather the opposite. I see alot of words thrashed about, alot of denigration due to our disinterest in your logic and then your attempt to defame us when we already know where we stand on the KJB.

Funny you say that about Strong's Concordance, yet every instance I and you both use the same Strong's numbering system to identify the Greek and Hebrew words. Hmmm? I never said Strong was accurate in all his definitions, and I really don't believe Will said that either. You're not lying again are you?

 

[Precepts]

The NASB is very plain and easy to read, "He then became hungry," a very accurate translation of the Greek tense here, the active aorist indicative.

Craig, do you really belive Jesus never got hungry until after 40 days?

Please, praytell, what was it Jesus was hungry for? Then why did the devil tempt Jesus in three different ways if He was just "hungry"?

3983 peinaw peinao pi-nah’-o

from the same as 3993 (through the idea of pinching toil; "pine"); TDNT-6:12,820; v

AV-hunger 10, be an hungred 9, be hungry 3, hungry 1; 23

1) to hunger, be hungry
1a) to suffer want
1b) to be needy
2) metaph. to crave ardently, to seek with eager desire

Now tell us from the nas"v" why Jesus fasted for forty days just so the devil could tempt Him so?

Then why was it reported after 40 days (and nights) Jesus became "an hungered" Hmmm? Reckon His being God has something to do with it all? Hmmm? Just who is it that doesn't understand the word "hungered"?