• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV Onlyest 1611 Psalm 12:7 note, question.

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Phooey on this argument. Some of the Jewish customs , like the wedding ceremony, is harder to grasp than what you refer to as an archaic word. Who, besides maybe the NIV people , have tried to make that easy to be understood. He calls the NT church with it's unique doctrines, mysteries. Peter, an apostle, who was not taught these mysteries as Paul was, said these words;

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1Co 4:1 ¶ Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

God has nowhere said he has for a goal of making his Bible easy to understand.
You say that some Jewish customs are harder to grasp than some archaic words. I disagree, particularly in regard to words which still exist today, but with a totally different meaning to the way they are used in the KJV. Just two examples. "Carriages" today are wheeled vehicles. Not in the KJV, where it means luggage or equipment:

Isa 10:28 He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:

"Prevent" today means to stop something happening. Not in the KJV, where it means to go before:

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Such words can present a problem, because, as they are still in regular use today, the reader will not see the need to look up their meaning. What is wrong with using words like "equipment" (rather than "carriages") and "precede" (rather than "prevent")? It saves confusion, and makes no difference to the doctrine being taught.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
According to what scholar?
The guiding of the Holy Spirit was just as available to the believers who made the NKJV as to the Church of England makers of the KJV.

Not according to scholars. According to what the Scriptures themselves teach concerning the indwelling and guiding of all believers by the Holy Spirit. The wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:16).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
2 Peter 3:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


God has nowhere said he has for a goal of making his Bible easy to understand.
Peter did not say that God wanted His words to be kept in archaic language hard to be understood. Instead of referring to words hard to be understood, perhaps some doctrines of God are the things referred to as hard to be understood.

"And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8). "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). “They [the words] are all plain to him that understandeth” (Prov. 8:9).
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
You say that some Jewish customs are harder to grasp than some archaic words. I disagree, particularly in regard to words which still exist today, but with a totally different meaning to the way they are used in the KJV. Just two examples. "Carriages" today are wheeled vehicles. Not in the KJV, where it means luggage or equipment:

Isa 10:28 He is come to Aiath, he is passed to Migron; at Michmash he hath laid up his carriages:

"Prevent" today means to stop something happening. Not in the KJV, where it means to go before:

1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Such words can present a problem, because, as they are still in regular use today, the reader will not see the need to look up their meaning. What is wrong with using words like "equipment" (rather than "carriages") and "precede" (rather than "prevent")? It saves confusion, and makes no difference to the doctrine being taught.
You figured out what the word "prevent" means. Why are you so sure lesser ones cannot?
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
You figured out what the word "prevent" means. Why are you so sure lesser ones cannot?
Only by looking up in a concordance the meaning of the Hebrew word used. Before that, I imagined it meant to stop something happening. I looked it up because I couldn't get our usual meaning of "prevent" to make sense in the verses where it occurs in the KJV. Incidentally, another example of the same sort of thing is "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. The Greek word occurs 28 times in the New Testament, and in 27 of those times it is translated in the KJV as "knowledge" which is what the Greek word "gnosis" means. It doesn't mean science in the sense of physics, chemistry and biology, but all knowledge.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
Only by looking up in a concordance the meaning of the Hebrew word used. Before that, I imagined it meant to stop something happening. I looked it up because I couldn't get our usual meaning of "prevent" to make sense in the verses where it occurs in the KJV. Incidentally, another example of the same sort of thing is "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20. The Greek word occurs 28 times in the New Testament, and in 27 of those times it is translated in the KJV as "knowledge" which is what the Greek word "gnosis" means. It doesn't mean science in the sense of physics, chemistry and biology, but all knowledge.

Listen guy, your argument is not making sense to me. If you do not believe your translated Bible is inspired then you must look up every word in a concordance to learn what God really said and to check if your translation is reliable. Otherwise you never really read the word of God. You guys, in trying to be the smartest persons in the room, often present yourselves as NOT.

I am a KJV only believer. It is not because I believe there is no value in the study of the words from which the KJV is translated. I sometimes post the Bible word and the meaning of it. There are passages in the scripture that would be very difficult to understand and be sound in ones doctrine unless he studied this way. The Greek words Kartegao and Pauo is an example in 1 Corinthians 13 that comes to mind in determining the meaning of the "perfect thing" in that discussion. It is difficult to be convinced by the English alone. Read your commentaries and see how many of them do not understand that.

The point is, now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments, then I think you are foolish. Blindly following men without proving them is not good. I have spent a lifetime proving the KJV and at the end of my life I am more convinced than ever that it is the word of God. The comparison with the original language words has helped greatly in arriving at my conviction.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

This includes your English Bible translation.
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
Listen guy, your argument is not making sense to me. If you do not believe your translated Bible is inspired then you must look up every word in a concordance to learn what God really said and to check if your translation is reliable. Otherwise you never really read the word of God. You guys, in trying to be the smartest persons in the room, often present yourselves as NOT.

I am a KJV only believer. It is not because I believe there is no value in the study of the words from which the KJV is translated. I sometimes post the Bible word and the meaning of it. There are passages in the scripture that would be very difficult to understand and be sound in ones doctrine unless he studied this way. The Greek words Kartegao and Pauo is an example in 1 Corinthians 13 that comes to mind in determining the meaning of the "perfect thing" in that discussion. It is difficult to be convinced by the English alone. Read your commentaries and see how many of them do not understand that.

The point is, now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments, then I think you are foolish. Blindly following men without proving them is not good. I have spent a lifetime proving the KJV and at the end of my life I am more convinced than ever that it is the word of God. The comparison with the original language words has helped greatly in arriving at my conviction.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

This includes your English Bible translation.
I do not believe translations are inspired. I believe God inspired the original bible, written in Hebrew and Greek, and I believe He helps translators of His word. I assure you I am not trying to be the smartest person in the room. I am sorry if I gave you such a boastful impression - it was certainly unintentional.

You wrote: "now that you are telling me you are not a critic of your translations and do not demand they have a consistency throughout the entire Bible in both old and new testaments." Sorry, when did I ever post such an idea? In the post to which you were replying, the only translation I mentioned was the KJV.
 

Eternally Grateful

Active Member
the English language itself poses a problem for interpreters.

We have two general type. Work for works like KJV, NKJV NASB

And a general "thought for thought" translation like the NIV and the NLT.

Just like with the KJVO argument, you have people that argue against one or the other of these types of translation.

The flaw of the English language is it is weak. The Greek has far more tenses and language tools which makes it a more precise language, which is missing in the english language.

also. the english language has one word which can be used to translate many greek words all with different meaning (ie, Love in english translates Agape, Phileo or Philadelphia, Sarx and Eros in the greek)

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

so how do we properly interpret it as it is written?

We would need an expanded translation which flows away from a word for word translation. and tends to resemble more of a "general thought" translation which would not be welcomed by many.

(for those of us who have been a part of a church with general ICE principles and pastor teachers from Dallas Theological seminary. we may be full versed into what I am talking about.

As for words. Jesus restorative conversation with Peter (peter do you love me) I remember the first time I was in a study where the greek was consulted. That conversation between peter and Jesus became alot more powerful, (the fact Peter could not say He agape" loved Jesus. yet Jesus still told him to feed his sheep. shows how graceful God is..

Then we have the "transliterated words" Like baptize" which is not even a translation, (not sure why any interpreter would think of doing this, but it has caused division in the church since)
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
No translation of any word is inspired.

Only the original autographs are inspired. even the copies of the text is not inspired. thats why there are so many different types
But accurate copies retain the inspired Originals. True there are no perfect copies , but there are many accurate ones. But the ones that are correct do preserve the Originals. For instance John 1:1-17.
 

JD731

Well-Known Member
the English language itself poses a problem for interpreters.

We have two general type. Work for works like KJV, NKJV NASB

And a general "thought for thought" translation like the NIV and the NLT.

Just like with the KJVO argument, you have people that argue against one or the other of these types of translation.

The flaw of the English language is it is weak. The Greek has far more tenses and language tools which makes it a more precise language, which is missing in the english language.

also. the english language has one word which can be used to translate many greek words all with different meaning (ie, Love in english translates Agape, Phileo or Philadelphia, Sarx and Eros in the greek)

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

so how do we properly interpret it as it is written?

We would need an expanded translation which flows away from a word for word translation. and tends to resemble more of a "general thought" translation which would not be welcomed by many.

(for those of us who have been a part of a church with general ICE principles and pastor teachers from Dallas Theological seminary. we may be full versed into what I am talking about.

As for words. Jesus restorative conversation with Peter (peter do you love me) I remember the first time I was in a study where the greek was consulted. That conversation between peter and Jesus became alot more powerful, (the fact Peter could not say He agape" loved Jesus. yet Jesus still told him to feed his sheep. shows how graceful God is..

Then we have the "transliterated words" Like baptize" which is not even a translation, (not sure why any interpreter would think of doing this, but it has caused division in the church since)
Let me just say that your logic here is very flawed. This can be illustrated by the example you chose to illustrate your point. You chose Ephesian 2 here:

so in order to keep a word for word bible. it is next to impossible to find the deeper meaning of some passages. and even harder to properly portray a passage to convey the whole meaning

a good example is eph 2: 8, for By Grace we "have been" saved.

in English, it conveys that something occurred in the past. There is no way to determine in the text if this salvation is still in effect. or if this salvation is complete or perfect. meaning it is a completed action.

In the greek Saved is in the perfecty tense, meaning it is a completed action.

What you actually illustrate is that you have completely missed the point of the letter and it's theme. The letter is the revelation of a "mystery." This mystery has been personally taught to one apostle Paul by Jesus Christ himself in the person of the Spirit. No doubt this took place in the beginning of Paul's Christian sojourn during his time in Arabia and he is charged to reveal it and explain it. The theme is the mystery that has been hidden in God and it is named in the epistle as "the mystery of Christ." It is defined in a single nutshell verse and it gives the PURPOSE for this age that some of us refers to as "the church age, but God in his book of Matthew chapter 13 refers to as "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

Here is the defining verse;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers (with the Jews to whom the promise was given) of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

The Jews were promised salvation in Christ, the Jews savior, but not the gentiles. This was not a mystery. It is in Acts 10 that God invited gentiles to be saved along with the Jews. He is not keeping any promises to gentiles by this action but it is because he is good and kind and gracious and he pities us.

So, these facts instructs me that you are way off in presenting Eph 2:8 as you have done in your comments when you quoted God in this manner;

for By Grace we "have been" saved.

It is not "we" and it is not past tense. It is "ye" as in gentiles as included in the body with the Jews, who were first in the body, and it is "are" as in present tense, meaning "this present age."

Read what he said in the previous 7 verses and see how Paul uses ye/you with we/us along with "together" in the body of Christ.

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) (He did not say "we are saved by grace" because the Jews were at that time still a nation and had the promise of the Abrahamic covenant. God was keeping a promise to them)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Grace equal Gift.



You presentation of Ephesians 2 frustrates the great doctrine of the church by not recognizing the three entities that are in the body of Christ, Jews, gentiles, and the Spirit of Christ, and how, when, and why they got there. Some of these translations changes the teaching of the truth. We must walk circumspectly and be watchful.
 
Last edited:
Top