Four reasonable questions concerning KJVO

[Logos1560]

I am not attempting to agree or disagree with you on a scripturtal basis because you have not made a scriptural argument.

You dodged and avoided answering my questions. My sound questions demonstrated that I was not making any excuses.

You present your KJV-only opinions that the verses that you cite do not actually teach them so you make no clear, sound, scriptural arguments for your opinions.

I present scripturally-based arguments regardless of your attempted dismissal of them.

Your improper responses often involve strawman distortions, carnal smear tactics, or insults instead of any serious discussion of my scripturally-based points.

 

[JD731]

You dodged and avoided answering my questions. My sound questions demonstrated that I was not making any excuses.

You present your KJV-only opinions that the verses that you cite do not actually teach them so you make no clear, sound, scriptural arguments for your opinions.

I present scripturally-based arguments regardless of your attempted dismissal of them.

Your improper responses often involve strawman distortions, carnal smear tactics, or insults instead of any serious discussion of my scripturally-based points.

Matthew 16:3
And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jn 5 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.



It is interesting that Jesus Christ spoke this to a group of men who held the scriptures in high regard and made an occupation of studying them and yet according to Jesus Christ did not see the truth in them. Truth is narrow and the way is narrow. and the manner in which the modern church is handling the word of God is an indication that all that God inspired the prophet to the gentiles, the apostle Paul, to say concerning the apostasy that would be prevalent when he comes is true. The modern practice that is accepted and tolerated by the profesing church concerning translations and paraphrasing of God's marvelous words is a symptom of the apostasy that he warns us of in the patoral epistles.

I rest my case with you. I am not here to just argue and try to win an argument and this is where this discussion is heading. Prosecute your Christian faith by insisting the scriptures we have today are the best men can produce, if that is the course you have set for your life. If what you say is true then I will be left to be surprised at the judgement and maybe condemned. Surprised because all through the scriptures God has bragged on the faithfulness of his words. Now you say it is the message only and not the words and we should be satified with whatever words the translators and the paraphrasers have chosen to present them. Who would have known?

John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Here is the manner modern men should present this in their translations to match what they preach;

Sancttify them through thy message, thy message is truth.

But we need to be reminded about Bibles and the gospel and what is of first importance. My following comments are not to imply that anyone posting here is not saved but I feel it is important to remember this.

Salvation is not by believing in a certain translation. Salvation is by believing in a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Sinners must understand that God has provided a perfect substitute to take upon himself every sinners sins and whosoever will recognize their guilt of breaking God's law and owns it and repents and believes in Christ they will be saved. God will then lead them as a son of his by his Spirit who dwells in all his sons and we will be better equipped to know what pleases God. All the people who were saved in the book of Acts, a period of about 40 years, were saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and without a New Testament Bible present anywhere. Salvation does not come by reading a translation. Salvation comes by hearing the gospel. Romans 1:16 says the gospel is the power (authority) of God unto salvation to whosoever believes it. Bibles are for Christians. The simple gospel of Christ is for the unsaved. The unsaved must here it and Christains must preach it.Paul wrote all his letters to people who were already saved by hearing the gospel and believing it.

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. He is the only way to be saved.

 

[CJP69]

Make excuses if you want but you have presented nothing but your opinions.

Saying it doesn't make it so, JD.

Respond to the arguments he's made or admit that you cannot or simply that you do not want to but pretending like he hasn't made any arguments makes you look like the moron, not him.

 

[Logos1560]

Now you say it is the message only and not the words and we should be satified with whatever words the translators and the paraphrasers have chosen to present them.

Again, you respond with a bogus strawman. You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I did not state. I nowhere say it is the message only and not the words as you incorrectly allege.

The KJV does not preserve each and every original-language word of Scripture. According to its makers, the KJV omits giving any English rendering for many original-language words of Scripture, and it adds many words in English for which it has no original-language words of Scripture in its underlying texts.

At those places where the KJV could be said to have a dynamic equivalency or paraphrasing, does it rob men of God’s words according to a consistent application of KJV-only assertions?

Does a consistent, just application of the human reasoning of the KJV-only view suggest that believers should reject the KJV if it has any renderings that can accurately and justly be considered non-literal dynamic equivalencies?

According to a consistent, just application of KJV-only assertions, would the Christian faith be threatened by any dynamic equivalencies or paraphrasing in the KJV?

 

[Baptizo]

You do not understand how wrong you are and you are plowing with the wrong team.

Please correct me if I misunderstand but are you suggesting that a person isn’t saved unless they believe in the infallibility of the KJV?

 

[JD731]

Saying it doesn't make it so, JD.

Respond to the arguments he's made or admit that you cannot or simply that you do not want to but pretending like he hasn't made any arguments makes you look like the moron, not him.

I told you why I am not responding. If you do not like my reasoning then I don't your referreing

 

[JD731]

Please correct me if I misunderstand but are you suggesting that a person isn’t saved unless they believe in the infallibility of the KJV?

It is frustrating to me when you make a response to me after I have posted the following. It just shows that you do not read my comments.

But we need to be reminded about Bibles and the gospel and what is of first importance. My following comments are not to imply that anyone posting here is not saved but I feel it is important to remember this.

Salvation is not by believing in a certain translation. Salvation is by believing in a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Sinners must understand that God has provided a perfect substitute to take upon himself every sinners sins and whosoever will recognize their guilt of breaking God's law and owns it and repents and believes in Christ they will be saved. God will then lead them as a son of his by his Spirit who dwells in all his sons and we will be better equipped to know what pleases God. All the people who were saved in the book of Acts, a period of about 40 years, were saved by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and without a New Testament Bible present anywhere. Salvation does not come by reading a translation. Salvation comes by hearing the gospel. Romans 1:16 says the gospel is the power (authority) of God unto salvation to whosoever believes it. Bibles are for Christians. The simple gospel of Christ is for the unsaved. The unsaved must hear it and Christains must preach it. Paul wrote all his letters to people who were already saved by hearing the gospel and believing it.

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.
27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Jesus Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. He is the only way to be saved.

I have rested my case between you and me. If you do not read my comments I request you please rest yours with me as well. Thanks for the commentary so far and God bless you in your walk with the Lord.

 

[Baptist4life]

Oh, didn't you know? Logos is never wrong.

That was sarcasm.

Do you clearly bear false witness since I have never made such a claim?

You improperly try to put words in my mouth that I do not say.

I didn't put ANY words in your mouth, sir! I simply, sarcastically, posted MY opinion of you. That you are never wrong. I did NOT say that YOU said that, therefore I put no words in your mouth! MY OPINON....you come across as a self righteous, copy and paste king, know-it-all with an unhealthy obsession......MY OPINION of you. So......YOU bore false witness against me by accusing me of stating that YOU made the claim of never being wrong. I did not. Proof read next time.

 

[Baptizo]

My following comments are not to imply that anyone posting here is not saved

Yes I did miss that. My apologies.

 

[Logos1560]

According to the definition of the term translation, it should be clear that a translator/interpreter does not stand in the same place as the author or authors of a work or text. Kevin Vanhoozer noted: “The author, as the one who originates and guarantees authenticity, also commands and controls meaning. Authorship implies ownership” (Is There a Meaning in this Text, p. 46). Kevin Vanhoozer observed: “The author is responsible both for the existence of the text (that it is) and for its specific nature (what it is)” (p. 228). Keith Vanhoozer noted: “The original meaning alone is the authentic meaning, the author’s actual, authoritative meaning” (p. 46). A translator/interpreter does not even stand in the same place as a prophet or an apostle who received revelation or scripture supernaturally and directly from God. Translators/interpreters do not give authority to the prophets and apostles who were directly given the Scriptures by the miracle of inspiration of God. Translators do not give authority to the original-language words of Scripture given by inspiration of God, and they do not determine the actual, original, authentic, authoritative meaning of those inspired words. Translators/interpreters are not the owners of the original words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.

Translators are men under the authority of God and under the authority of the Scriptures which God gave to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16, 2 Tim. 3:16, Prov. 22:7). Translators are accountable to something prior to themselves [the texts which they translate]. Translators are subject to the original-language texts. David Cloud observed: “The translator is not receiving Scripture by the process of divine inspiration; he is not authoring the Scripture; he is merely translating the Scripture into another language” (Dynamic Equivalency, p. 50). William Whitaker noted: “For it is the function of an interpreter to translate the authentic scripture, not to make his own translation authentic scripture” (Disputation, p. 147). Kevin Vanhoozer asserted: “The prime directive for the interpreter [or translator] is in fact a commandment: ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness’” (Is There a Meaning in this Text, p. 5). Leland Ryken maintained that “the goal in Bible translation is truth” (Gruden, Translating Truth, p. 61). The work of translators is clearly secondary, derivative, and dependent. Clearly a translator should not be transformed into an usurper who is granted the power, authority, and rights of the author.

 

[CJP69]

I told you why I am not responding. If you do not like my reasoning then I don't your referreing

I'm not trying referee anything, I'm just reading the exchange and see that you just keep saying that he hasn't made any actual arguments when he very definitely has done so. You two aren't the only two people on the thread and you upping the substance of your presentation would increase the value of the discussion for everyone.

 

[JD731]

I'm not trying referee anything, I'm just reading the exchange and see that you just keep saying that he hasn't made any actual arguments when he very definitely has done so. You two aren't the only two people on the thread and you upping the substance of your presentation would increase the value of the discussion for everyone.

Sigh, There is nothing wrong with a referee. Why not just say you are acting as a referee because you are doing the work of a referee?

I don't owe you an explanation but I will give you one because you apparently missed why I am not responding. He did not make a substantive case from the scriptures. LG1560 posted references. That is like posting the first word of a sentence. References do not have any context.

I have a long history with Logos1560. You showed up here at 10/23. I have nothing against Logos1560 except the manner in which he presents his case. Did you look up all his references to see if they confirmed his premise? The answer is no. Neither did I. I don't have that much time or interest. in what he has to say. The Hebrews had the same Bible for 1500 years before Jesus appeared. They just added to it as God gave them more inspired words. So, one cannot make the case that a precedent for rewriting the scriptures to fit the times is found in the OT.

Now, I personally do not care what Logos1560 says about the KJV. I never quote anyone who is pro KJV only. That is my personal conviction. I present the reasons I am KJV only and I express opinions of why I think the philosophy of the age concerning translations and paraphrases is blaspheming the word of God. I do not speak for the movement of KJV only or for any other person. Everyone has their own reasons why they believe what they do and will be accountable for themselves.

Logos1560 quotes everyone but God. I do not know why he does not quote the scriptures but I am guessing that he would quote from the KJV if he did, even though he calls himself the Geneva Bible. I can't remember him ever quoting from the Geneva 1560. That is not to say he hasn't at some point.

Note: Please do not bring up the Septuagint. The reason the Jews were in Egypt 300 years before Jesus Christ came into the world and what God thinks about them being there is a matter of the prophecy of Jeremiah.

Translators are men under the authority of God and under the authority of the Scriptures which God gave to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 8:9, Luke 7:8, Matt. 10:24, Mark 13:34, John 13:16, 2 Tim. 3:16, Prov. 22:7).

Mt 8:9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

This gentile man is making the statement that he is under the authority of the Roman Government, Not God. His point is he acts under their authority by sending others to carry out the orders of the government. and he realizes that Jesus is the Son of God and was sent by God and acts under the authority of God. He does not have to go himself but can send his word with that authority. This is not the place one would go to to prove divine inspiration or translation of the scriptures.

Here is the whole story in 6 verses.

Mt 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

The word is spoken before it is written. What if this is the same Centurion of Acts 10?

Here is the story in ten verses in Luke 7; Compare him to The centurion in Acts 10, the events of which occurred 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

Now we know there was not a meeting between the Centurion and Jesus. There are spiritual lessons here and this is an act of grace on the part of Jesus because he was not sent to the gentiles but he honored this gentiles faith and healed his servant. This is how all gentiles will be saved. It will be before he comes into their presence. This is a prophetic event that is recorded for us to see how God thinks. It is not about translating the scriptures.

Do KJV-only advocates in effect bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite, fallible, imperfect KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority?

This dependence on the human authority of the fallible, imperfect KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view. The KJV-only view depends a great deal on the inappropriate human authority and scholarship of one exclusive group of imperfect, fallible, uninspired Church of England men in 1611.

All men, including the apostles and prophets who authored the original scriptures, were , as you say, fallible and imperfect men, but they had a divine presence with them. He is still here in the person of the Holy Spirit. We have just as much of God here on the earth as they did. Just because you cannot see him does not mean he is not here.

Does a blind trust in the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of the KJV translators suggest trust in fallible, imperfect men? If God's Word was "wholly revealed" to the KJV translators or “wholly understood” and perfectly interpreted/translated” by them, they in effect become the ultimate standard for truth, beyond which there is no other. When an attempt is made to claim that the product of the KJV translators is the final authority, it would in effect make these men who produced it the real final authority.

I have a verse in a passage that is dealing with revelation and inspiration that say the Holy Spirit, who is in the world today, has chosen the words to express the mind of God. If you have a verse that says he don't or can't I am willing to read it.

1Co 2:13 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.
Notation mine.

The scriptures were the spoken word before they were written.

[KJV-only advocates have in effect cloaked the KJV translators with such robes of superiority and infallibility that even a pope could only envy. Fred Butler, a former KJV-only advocate, asserted: “In a warped way, KJVO propaganda elevate the [KJV] translators to near, divine-like status” (Royal Deceptions, p. 117). Glenn Conjurske contended: “The main tenet of this [KJV-only] system, which exalts a human and imperfect translation to the place of perfection, giving it an authority equal (or superior) to the original, is a tenet of Romanism, which no Protestant ever believed before the advent of the present generation” (Bible Version, p. 62). Has the sufficiency of God's Word in effect been replaced with a "unique priesthood" of the KJV translators?

The KJV-only view in practice seems to abandon the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as it implies the exclusive priesthood of only a group of Church of England scholars/priests in 1611. KJV-only reasoning would leave English-speaking believers in effect dependent upon this one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.


Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5a)

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9a)

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father (Revelation 1:6a)

Continued next post

 

[JD731]

continued from above

Put these sayings in perspective. Peter was not given the charge to reveal the mysteries of Christ, which is his body, which is the church. Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. Peter even said in his letter that Paul's letters were hard to be understood.
Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Paul said the revelation of the mystery of the church was given to him, in Eph 3.

Very little logic and reasoning is used these days in Bible study. Paul writes Ephesians and Colossians to this same area that Peter and James wrote their letters to but Peter's focus was on those 10 tribes that had been cursed since God sent Hosea the prophet to tell them the gig is up because of your rebellion as a nation and you are no longer my people UNTIL you become my children. To become children of God requires a new birth and this could only have happened AFTER the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul preached to them as gentiles, because that is the way God viewed them when they are strangers out of their land and cut off from their covenants.

Hosea 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
8 Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great [shall be] the day of Jezreel.

This is my own logic and reasoning from my study and I think the Spirit of God can still produce a perfect Bible.

 

[Baptizo]

I present the reasons I am KJV only and I express opinions of why I think the philosophy of the age concerning translations and paraphrases is blaspheming the word of God.

I understand your conviction and I understand that you have rested your case with me. I am not attempting to sway you from your position.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the KJV Elizabethan English is somewhere between 5-10% outdated compared to modern English today. At what point would the English language have to evolve for an update to be necessary? 25%? 50%?

One example I will provide is the definition of the word “prevent” according to the 1828 Webster’s dictionary and the definition of the word today:

1828 - To go before; to precede.

Today - To keep something from happening or arising.

Would you reasonably expect a new convert to read the KJV and be able to make that distinction?

 

[JD731]

I understand your conviction and I understand that you have rested your case with me. I am not attempting to sway you from your position.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the KJV Elizabethan English is somewhere between 5-10% outdated compared to modern English today. At what point would the English language have to evolve for an update to be necessary? 25%? 50%?

One example I will provide is the definition of the word “prevent” according to the 1828 Webster’s dictionary and the definition of the word today:

1828 - To go before; to precede.

Today - To keep something from happening or arising.

Would you reasonably expect a new convert to read the KJV and be able to make that distinction?

God has written his scriptures so as to hide his truths from the unwashed. So the answer to your questions is the new convert is instructed by God to put himself under ordained teachers. God has not left him on his own.

This falls under the same category as many things in the scriptures that requires faithful teachers and the presence of the Spirit of the indwelling Christ in order to learn them. The following are examples. Ask the next layman Presbyterian or Baptist or Methodist, all considered mainline church denominations, what these phrases I have underlined mean. Make sure you ask those who have at least 6 new translations or paraphrases. See if there is any agreement on their answer. How would you explain them?


Re 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

God has written his scriptures from his own mind and in words he has chosen and this hides his truth from those who will try to learn them from strict intellectualism or from emotionalism. God really does mean it when he says the following;

1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we (we being spiritual people) have the mind of Christ. I encourage you to read the entire chapter of 1 Cor 2 from the KJV. Then read 2 Cor 11 and understand that this age is an age of conspiracy and deception and the pure word of God is the place of safety. [Ga 1:4 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]

Lu 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.


Here is how far off track proud men can get;

Lu 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

I am just quoting scripture which I believe bears upon our subject. It is not to make accusation against any particular person or persons here. But we all should be warned by verses like these. They do have meaning.

 

[CJP69]

Sigh, There is nothing wrong with a referee. Why not just say you are acting as a referee because you are doing the work of a referee?

Referees have authority that I do not. I am expressing my thoughts on an internet forum.

I don't owe you an explanation....

Nor have I asked for one.

....but I will give you one because you apparently missed why I am not responding.

I never said that you aren't responding. I said that you're responding by claiming that all he's doing is presenting his personal opinions that are empty of any actual arguments, which is simply not the case.

He did not make a substantive case from the scriptures. LG1560 posted references. That is like posting the first word of a sentence. References do not have any context.

I have a long history with Logos1560. You showed up here at 10/23. I have nothing against Logos1560 except the manner in which he presents his case. Did you look up all his references to see if they confirmed his premise? The answer is no. Neither did I. I don't have that much time or interest. in what he has to say. The Hebrews had the same Bible for 1500 years before Jesus appeared. They just added to it as God gave them more inspired words. So, one cannot make the case that a precedent for rewriting the scriptures to fit the times is found in the OT.

Nor should he need to make any such case. YOU SHOULD!!!

What do you think the KJV is if not a "rewriting of the scriptures to fit the times"?

Guess what, JD! No one speaks or reads Koine Greek unless they're very dedicated bible scholars and nearly everyone reads and speaks English. In the 16th century, when the idea of the KJV got off the ground, even few people spoke biblical languages than do today. The entire purpose and value of the KJV rests precisely on the fact that regular people could read it when it was produced.

Now, I personally do not care what Logos1560 says about the KJV. I never quote anyone who is pro KJV only. That is my personal conviction. I present the reasons I am KJV only and I express opinions of why I think the philosophy of the age concerning translations and paraphrases is blaspheming the word of God. I do not speak for the movement of KJV only or for any other person. Everyone has their own reasons why they believe what they do and will be accountable for themselves.

You're either trying to ride the fence here or you aren't really KJV only.

Using the KJV because it's your personal preference isn't what makes someone "KJV only". The fact that you're asking someone to find a biblical precedent for modern translation because you know that no such precedent exists serves two contradictory ends....

1. It demonstrates that it is more than a mere personal preference on your part.
2. It serves (or it would serve if it were a valid argument) to undermine the veracity of the KJV as much as it does any modern English translation.

Logos1560 quotes everyone but God. I do not know why he does not quote the scriptures but I am guessing that he would quote from the KJV if he did, even though he calls himself the Geneva Bible. I can't remember him ever quoting from the Geneva 1560. That is not to say he hasn't at some point.

You precious KJV is just a revision of the Geneva Bible.

Note: Please do not bring up the Septuagint. The reason the Jews were in Egypt 300 years before Jesus Christ came into the world and what God thinks about them being there is a matter of the prophecy of Jeremiah.

I always make a note of the things those who are debating something don't want others to bring up.

Jesus quoted regularly from the Septuagint. He did it all the time. One might get the idea that it was His own "personal preference".

 

[Baptizo]

God has not left him on his own.

Does your position assert that the Holy Spirit would allow the reader to instinctively know that “prevent” is referring to its 1828 definition? Otherwise one might completely lose the proper meaning of the verse.

 

[JD731]

Referees have authority that I do not. I am expressing my thoughts on an internet forum.


Nor have I asked for one.


I never said that you aren't responding. I said that you're responding by claiming that all he's doing is presenting his personal opinions that are empty of any actual arguments, which is simply not the case.


Nor should he need to make any such case. YOU SHOULD!!!

What do you think the KJV is if not a "rewriting of the scriptures to fit the times"?

Guess what, JD! No one speaks or reads Koine Greek unless they're very dedicated bible scholars and nearly everyone reads and speaks English. In the 16th century, when the idea of the KJV got off the ground, even few people spoke biblical languages than do today. The entire purpose and value of the KJV rests precisely on the fact that regular people could read it when it was produced.


You're either trying to ride the fence here or you aren't really KJV only.

Using the KJV because it's your personal preference isn't what makes someone "KJV only". The fact that you're asking someone to find a biblical precedent for modern translation because you know that no such precedent exists serves two contradictory ends....

1. It demonstrates that it is more than a mere personal preference on your part.
2. It serves (or it would serve if it were a valid argument) to undermine the veracity of the KJV as much as it does any modern English translation.


You precious KJV is just a revision of the Geneva Bible.


I always make a note of the things those who are debating something don't want others to bring up.

Jesus quoted regularly from the Septuagint. He did it all the time. One might get the idea that it was His own "personal preference".

Okay, now I know everything you want me to know and I am happy with your personal preferences and what you think of my internet discussion style of defending my faith. I am not into group - think and I will continue to have a problem with the modern philosophy of continual translating and paraphrasing of the word of God and presenting it as if it is mandated or even approved by God. This is the opposite of KJV only and it is never addressed from the scripture by it's proponents. In a post where Logos1560 tried, it was shown that translating the scriptures was not the context of his scripture references. If you want to make a case for it, I will consider what you say. I have given biblical reasons why God does not want every one to understand what the KJV calls "the deep things of God."

Jesus quoted regularly from the Septuagint. He did it all the time. One might get the idea that it was His own "personal preference"

Reason and logic.

Here is Jesus Christ, coming into the world to fulfill, he said, all the prophecies of the OT in the Psalms, prophets and law concerning himself. One of the themes of the prophetic word of God is that he is coming as King of Israel and by extension, the world. His kingdom is to be one of perfect peace for 1000 years and it was not by accident that he chose to structure his kingdom after the model of Moses when he led the nation out of Egypt, a type of the world system. He chose 12 apostles to be over the 12 tribes of Israel and at the end of his ministry, after he was rejected by the rulers of the nation, he said this to these 12.because men have free will but that fact does not circumvent the purposes of God. He just changes his tactics to arrive where he wants to be and the rejecters will be accountable later.

Matt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

In Luke 10 Jesus chose 70 of his disciples and sent them to Israel with his own authority concerning his kingdom and gave instructions the conditions for entrance. This would fulfill the model of the kingdom under Moses and it will be these men who will occupy the offices of the future reality of the kingdom of Jesus Christ on the earth.

I say all this to ask you why Jesus Christ would be preaching a Jewish kingdom to Jews, who have their own national language and doing it in a gentile language? It does not even make sense. He might have spoken to them in the Greek language after Matt 12 where they made it known they had decided as a nation to put him to death because they were under the curse of the unpardonable sin from that point on, a time near the end of his ministry on earth because we have this information;

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The Jews were the unbelievers in this passage and is why there was a gentile church.

God speaking to Jews in a language that is not Hebrew is a sign to them of a judgement. Jesus Christ came to save the Jews, not curse them. The curse was later on them through unbelief and rebellion.

I am saying how illogical and unreasonable to teach that Jesus and his apostles preached to Israel in a gentile language and from a book that was written by renegade Jews in Egypt, a land they had been delivered from. It makes no sense.

Listen to this prophecy and a pure language, meaning all Israel will speak THE SAME language.It will be Hebrew.

Zep 3:6 I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
7 I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings.
8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

Now watch this after verse 8

9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

Had Israel had received her Messiah, this prophecy would have been fulfilled in 70 AD.
and all rebels destroyed from the earth at this time. As it is, it will be fulfilled later. This age is an age of mysteries.

 

[JD731]

Does your position assert that the Holy Spirit would allow the reader to instinctively know that “prevent” is referring to its 1828 definition? Otherwise one might completely lose the proper meaning of the verse.

I am a KJV only believer and I, studying from my KJV, know the meaning of "prevent" in the passage. But, to answer your question, the answer is "no."

 

[Logos1560]

I will continue to have a problem with the modern philosophy of continual translating and paraphrasing of the word of God and presenting it as if it is mandated or even approved by God.

Is it interesting that you seem to have no problem with the modern philosophy of continual translating and paraphrasing of the word of God into English from 1526 until 1611 or 1769 and presenting those multiple, varying English Bibles as approved by God?

Is it interesting that you seem to have no problem with non-literal, non-word-for-word dynamic equivalent renderings or paraphrases in the KJV? You fail to apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly.

There would likely be more significant and a greater number of textual differences between the first authorized English Bible translation [the Great Bible] and the third authorized Church of England English Bible translation [the KJV] than there are between the KJV and the NKJV.

Because of all the many changes in the English language between 1611 and 1982, much updating to the 1500's English in the KJV was needed in order to present the word of God in present-day English.

You make no positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, and scriptural case for suggesting that God directly approved of the translating process in 1611 while not approving of the same translating process in 1537, 1539, 1560, or 1982.