Is the Greek reliable?

[Logos1560]

Psa 33:11 The counsaile of the Lord standeth for euer, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Does the KJV edition that you cite accurately and faithfully preserve and present the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV?

The 1611 KJV has "the LORD" instead of "the Lord."

The 1611 edition of the KJV has some errors keep uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

You still won't take a stand, will you. Don't be wishy washy. Tell us, in what form did God preserve His Word? In the original languages (the original mss of what we do not have), or in the KJV (the original mss of which we do not have)?

Interesting. So you are quoting from one of the 1611 original editions, is that correct? Is that what you believe the Lord preserved His Word in? (Remembering that we do not have the original mss of the KJV.)

Can you understand the early English language of the 1611? Or do you need another P.h.D.?

 

[Logos1560]

Do KJV-only advocates in effect wrest the written words of God in order to teach their modern, human, unproven, non-scriptural, KJV-only opinions and traditions?

 

[John of Japan]

Does the KJV edition that you cite accurately and faithfully preserve and present the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV?

The 1611 KJV has "the LORD" instead of "the Lord."

The 1611 edition of the KJV has some errors keep uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

Yep, that's what my 1611 copy has. How about it, HH, are you quoting a false version?

 

[John of Japan]

Can you understand the early English language of the 1611? Or do you need another P.h.D.?

Actually, yes, I understand 1611 English quite well. Grew up with the KJV, so I've heard it and/or read it for 67 years now. Took 6 credits of Shakespeare in college as an English minor. My major was Bible, and yes, it was the KJV.

But you won't even tell me if you know what "letteth" means in the KJV. So, do you understand the early English language of the 1611?

So I've taken a stand and said exactly what I believe about the inspiration of the Bible. Can you take courage and do the same? Will you stand up for what you believe?

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Does the KJV edition that you cite accurately and faithfully preserve and present the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV?

The 1611 KJV has "the LORD" instead of "the Lord."

The 1611 edition of the KJV has some errors keep uncorrected from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible.

The Jehovah's Witnesses quibbled so much over how "the Lord" was used in The Holy Bible that they decided to scrap it altogether and re-write the Bible in 1950. They erased the troublesome "Lord" to deny the Deity of Christ, and they also erased "cross", but replaced it with toture stake with a definition of something similar to describe an upright pole with no cross beam, and they added the letter "a" with a lower case "g" for "god" to make their Bible to teach that their jesus is "a god" in John 1:1 along with many other troublesome words that disagreed with their antichrist doctrines so that they could teach a jesus that is an invisible angel with the name Abaddon (another name for Satan), as they denied the power of God to preserve His words, while slandering Christians, even accusing them of having rewritten the Bible, so they had to "fix it". Yep, the Watchtower Society of JWs would agree with your remarks.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Actually, yes, I understand 1611 English quite well. Grew up with the KJV, so I've heard it and/or read it for 67 years now. Took 6 credits of Shakespeare in college as an English minor. My major was Bible, and yes, it was the KJV.

But you won't even tell me if you know what "letteth" means in the KJV. So, do you understand the early English language of the 1611?

So I've taken a stand and said exactly what I believe about the inspiration of the Bible. Can you take courage and do the same? Will you stand up for what you believe?

I gave an answer, although it was not the one you were seeking. Do you understand the context of the passage, and can you explain what is entailed in the verse of 2Thessalonians 2:7? There's a whole lot of talk about the Bible, but no one has demonstrated understanding of substance of Doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

I gave an answer, although it was not the one you were seeking. Do you understand the context of the passage, and can you explain what is entailed in the verse of 2Thessalonians 2:7? There's a whole lot of talk about the Bible, but no one has demonstrated understanding of substance of Doctrine.

Sure I understand the context of 2 Thess. 2. Do you? If so, what does "letteth" mean in v. 7? This is the 3rd time I've asked, so if you don't answer this time I'll just assume that you yourself do not understand 1611 English.

I think you're hesitant (afraid?) to answer this question because it goes contrary to your narrative that the words of the 1611 version have not changed in meaning. Of course, you yourself did not quote entirely from the 1611 version as Logos showed ....

 

[robycop3]

**I have found the term to be derogatory because it has been used in the derogatory sense with lumping Bible Believing Born Again Christians with Occultists. I have seen loving, tender hearted, gentle, and meek Christians seriously hurt as a result of that abuse with the denial of God's power to preserve His words for all generations.

I acknowledge that there are many Mexicans that are named Je'sus, but why throw that argument into the pot to deflect from the reality that there are and have been many people that have claimed to be Christ - λόγος - logos - log'-os

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

What do you suppose those people that followed after Jim Jones thought? "many Mexican's are named Jesus but I choose Jimmy because he has Kool-Aid and a lot of it"?

Jim Jones was not just a one hit wonder, he was one of many many people that claimed to be Christ or Logos that took multitudes of people to hell with them.

**I am going to give a further response with reference to this pointed subject on one of your other posts, with a link to this post.

Sir, I'm a Bible-Believer, & I very seldom use the KJV. It's not in OUR English, & it has its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Avts 12:4.

So, Sir, I suggest you cease implying that only KJVOs are Bible-Believers among English-users.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Sir, I'm a Bible-Believer, & I very seldom use the KJV. It's not in OUR English, & it has its share of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Avts 12:4.

So, Sir, I suggest you cease implying that only KJVOs are Bible-Believers among English-users.

Is it true that you also believe that the Biblical Doctrine of "hell" is another goof and booboo in the The Holy Bible? Is it true that you deny the existence of the eternal fiery place made for Satan and his angels, where people that reject Jesus Christ in this life will go to after their death? Is it true that you believe that "hell" is nothing more than the common grave and that when people die, they simply cease to exist? If so, can you justify your position using your chosen Bible "Translation", and identify which "Translation" you will use to support your argument?

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Actually, yes, I understand 1611 English quite well. Grew up with the KJV, so I've heard it and/or read it for 67 years now. Took 6 credits of Shakespeare in college as an English minor. My major was Bible, and yes, it was the KJV.

But you won't even tell me if you know what "letteth" means in the KJV. So, do you understand the early English language of the 1611?

So I've taken a stand and said exactly what I believe about the inspiration of the Bible. Can you take courage and do the same? Will you stand up for what you believe?

If you don't mind, since you skipped the second half of my inititial question to you, please, let's proceed to discussion of the Doctrine of the passage of 2Thessalonians. Otherwise, I'm going to perceive this as a word game challenge that is equivalent to playing Bible Pong with JWs while they argue with me, trying to convinve me that The Holy Bible is wrong; "Do you know what Stau-ros' means?"

Please, feel free to share your thought about it. I do value your input here, since you are a teacher of the Greek. (No sarcasm or humor in this remark; I do value your input and hope that we might can come to a mutual understanding). I intend to make a case later of how various Modern Translations have been made using the exact same method and pattern as this Occult Group, and tie that in with how others propagating such inferior mis-translations, use the same method of gathering quotes from various "Scholars" to make the same type of repitious brainwashing arguments. Here's an example of how they run to the Greek and quote numerous people in the procress to promote their antichrist work of fiction:


"What does the original Greek reveal as to the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was put to death?

Most Bible translations say Christ was “crucified” rather than “impaled.” This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a “cross” made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha.

Yet, what did the Bible writers themselves say about these matters? They used the Greek noun stau·ros′ 27 times and the verbs stau·ro′o 46 times, syn·stau·ro′o (the prefix syn, meaning “with”) 5 times, and a·na·stau·ro′o (a·na′, meaning “again”) once. They also used the Greek word xy′lon, meaning “wood,” 5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed.


Stau·ros′ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a “cross” made of two timbers. It means only an upright stake, pale, pile, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade. Says Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,” page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.”

The fact that Luke, Peter, and Paul also used xy′lon as a synonym for stau·ros′ gives added evidence that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy′lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) Xy′lon also occurs in the Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11, where it speaks of a single beam or timber on which a lawbreaker was to be impaled.

The New World Translation, therefore, faithfully conveys to the reader this basic idea of the Greek text by rendering stau·ros′ as “torture stake,” and the verb stau·ro′o as “impale,” that is, to fasten on a stake, or pole. In this way there is no confusion of stau·ros′ with the traditional ecclesiastical crosses. (See TORTURE STAKE.) The matter of one man like Simon of Cyrene bearing a torture stake, as the Scriptures say, is perfectly reasonable, for if it was 15 cm (6 in.) in diameter and 3.5 m (11 ft) long, it probably weighed little more than 45 kg (100 lb).—Mr 15:21.

Note what W. E. Vine says on this subject: “STAUROS (σταυρός) denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.” Greek scholar Vine then mentions the Chaldean origin of the two-piece cross and how it was adopted from the pagans by Christendom in the third century C.E. as a symbol of Christ’s impalement.—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.


Significant is this comment in the book The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art: “It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—By G. S. Tyack, London, 1900, p. 1.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible, 1974, Appendix No. 162." Insight Volume I Page 1191 - 1988 (Watchtower Society JW Occult Publication)

 

[Rob_BW]

Is it true that you also believe that the Biblical Doctrine of "hell" is another goof and booboo in the The Holy Bible? Is it true that you deny the existence of the eternal fiery place made for Satan and his angels, where people that reject Jesus Christ in this life will go to after their death? Is it true that you believe that "hell" is nothing more than the common grave and that when people die, they simply cease to exist? If so, can you justify your position using your chosen Bible "Translation", and identify which "Translation" you will use to support your argument?

What translation did Frothingham use as he preached Unitarianism in Boston?

 

[Heretic Hunter]

What translation did Frothingham use as he preached Unitarianism in Boston?

Would you like to understand the full spectrum of how and why the Illuminati-Masonic Occult hi-jacked The Holy Bible and their "Master Plan" to deceive and take over the world?

 

[John of Japan]

If you don't mind, since you skipped the second half of my inititial question to you, please, let's proceed to discussion of the Doctrine of the passage of 2Thessalonians. Otherwise, I'm going to perceive this as a word game challenge that is equivalent to playing Bible Pong with JWs while they argue with me, trying to convinve me that The Holy Bible is wrong; "Do you know what Stau-ros' means?"

In the first place, why should I answer you when you don't answer me? I've asked you two questions over and over: about the Japanese Bible and about the meaning of "letteth" in the Bible, and you won't answer. If that's a Bible Pong game, the ball has been in your court for quite awhile.

In the second place, my question about 2 Thess. 2:7 is not about doctrine, it is about simple semantics. What does "letteth" mean? That's about English, not about Greek.

I have concluded that you don't have the knowledge or expertise to discuss either Bible translation or 1611 semantics, since you keep avoiding my questions.

Now, why did you post all that about the JW linguistic idiocy concerning the cross? I certainly don't intend to debate their silliness on this thread. I've debated various passages with JWs before, but I see no need to do so on a Baptist board.

Please, feel free to share your thought about it. I do value your input here, since you are a teacher of the Greek. (No sarcasm or humor in this remark; I do value your input and hope that we might can come to a mutual understanding).

Thanks for the confidence, but I don't know what you mean by "your thought about it." About what?

 

[Rob_BW]

Would you like to understand the full spectrum of how and why the Illuminati-Masonic Occult hi-jacked The Holy Bible and their "Master Plan" to deceive and take over the world?

Chicki-leaks?

 

[Heretic Hunter]

In the first place, why should I answer you when you don't answer me? I've asked you two questions over and over: about the Japanese Bible and about the meaning of "letteth" in the Bible, and you won't answer. If that's a Bible Pong game, the ball has been in your court for quite awhile.

In the second place, my question about 2 Thess. 2:7 is not about doctrine, it is about simple semantics. What does "letteth" mean? That's about English, not about Greek.

I have concluded that you don't have the knowledge or expertise to discuss either Bible translation or 1611 semantics, since you keep avoiding my questions.

Now, why did you post all that about the JW linguistic idiocy concerning the cross? I certainly don't intend to debate their silliness on this thread. I've debated various passages with JWs before, but I see no need to do so on a Baptist board.


Thanks for the confidence, but I don't know what you mean by "your thought about it." About what?

Respectully, I asked you several questions that went unanswered, but i've opted not to pick on you about it. Please take your time to review my previous post. I using my "skip the question card" to get to the meat of the Doctrine of that passage. If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine, as that is your right. I'm going to conclude that you do not understand what the passage is about. The second part of my post was to address an example of error. I'm not going to rewrite that post here to reiterrate the point.

I hope that you are having a good day and pleasant weather where you are at.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Chicki-leaks?

I don't know anything about Chiki-leaks. I deal only with first hand sources.

 

[John of Japan]

Respectully, I asked you several questions that went unanswered, but i've opted not to pick on you about it. Please take your time to review my previous post. I using my "skip the question card" to get to the meat of the Doctrine of that passage. If you don't want to discuss it, that is fine, as that is your right. I'm going to conclude that you do not understand what the passage is about. The second part of my post was to address an example of error. I'm not going to rewrite that post here to reiterrate the point.

I don't even know what passage you want to discuss the doctrine of. Enlighten me.

I hope that you are having a good day and pleasant weather where you are at.

You too. It has warmed up to zero degrees here.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

I don't even know what passage you want to discuss the doctrine of. Enlighten me.

You too. It has warmed up to zero degrees here.

That is way too cold!! It sounds like you are in need of some warm sunshine!

When you get warmed up, and we have time, I would like to discuss the meat of Thessalonians. But please get warmed up and comfortable first!

 

[robycop3]

Herein lies your problem. This point is a double edged sword. You see, we don't have the original manuscripts of the KJV either. They wrote by hand, with no computers or typewriters, so they had handwritten manuscripts just like the original authors of God-breathed Scriptures. Then they compared and revised (unlike the original authors in Hebrew & Greek), coming up up with a final manuscript. We do not have any of those various drafts of the original KJV.

So, your argument is a complete non sequitur.

I believe God allowed the originals to vanish so they wouldn't become icons of worship as the "Holy Grail" was to knights of centuries past, and other objects such as the alleged splinter from Jesus' cross, or the alleged head of the spear with which He was pierced.

I could never figure out why people would worship those dead items insteada the PERSON (Jesus) who they say made them holy.(No Scripture about a Holy Grail, etc. And, traditionally, the Romans re-used crucifixion crosses. Jesus mighta been nailed to a previously-used cross, for all we know.