Spread of the "Only" Sect

Yes and these peoples have modernized versions of the Scriptures.

Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Latin (mentioned in Luke 23:38 and John 19:20) are the best preserved "dead" languages in history.

Of the Greek and Hebrew, the KJV translators had this to say:

It is obvious that they knew that the Greek and Hebrew languages were the earthly tongues through which God chose to preserve His Word from heaven.

Psalm 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

HankD

 

More like on something? </font>[/QUOTE]Comments like yours are not helpful and will get you time in detention young man.

Do you think you could at least show a little bit of Grace?
In His service;
Jim

 

Hank;
---------------------------------------
It is obvious that they knew that the Greek and Hebrew languages were the earthly tongues through which God chose to preserve His Word from heaven.
---------------------------------------

No argument here.
My question. Would you have every single believer on earth study and learn these "dead" languages? I submit, it is not necessary. God, in His providence has seen fit to give us His words in living languages. After all, He is the God of the living is He not?
Now before you go into a tizzy, let me add; I am perfectly aware of the context of where I get that comment.
My point is, always has been, and will continue to be;
If you contend that one must study to show himself approved unto God;
And this means studying "dead" languages to know what He said;
Then there can be no justification for any English translations. At all. None. Zip. Nada. Nyet.
If, however, you contend that the studying mentioned and commanded does not refer to the study of some "dead" languages but rather of the word itself;
Then there is still no justification for the hundreds of single language versions.
Why? Because English has not changed so drastically as to need the hundreds of versions that have come down the pike since 1880. It is still a living language.
You quote the translators? I do also.
"Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and thier horses flesh and not spirit; so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome affirmeth as much) that the seventy were interpreters and not prophets. They did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance; yea sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it: which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Ye who lean on the Septuagint ought to take notice of this.

Gentlemen; I contend that the Translators of the KJV were much more honest with the Scriptures than the multitude of the modern day "self-proclaimed" prophets of translational issues.

Touching upon the Elizabethan english for a moment. Why is it right and good for a student in school to study out the meaning of words used in his science books but not okay for him to need to do so in his Bible? I still contend and submit to you that it is not necessary for the multitude of English translations. What is necessary is for folks to get a bit more serious with the things of God and do a little study for themselves rather than leaning on the "teachers" having
"itching ears".
I do not need to learn a dead language. God raised up very able men to do that 400 years ago. What I need to do, is master my own mother tongue and study the Book.
(side note) I find it interesting that with all your professors' efforts not withstanding, that you still are concerned that this so called sect is growing. You cannot seem to 'stem the tide' can you?

In His service;
Jim

 

AV1611, I ask you again, why do you call yourself 1611 when I have little doubt you use an Oxford 1769?

I am currently reading through my Hendrickson copy (in New Times Roman--thank goodness) 1611. I bet you haven't even read through the real 1611, have you?

 

AV1611Jim:My question. Would you have every single believer on earth study and learn these "dead" languages? I submit, it is not necessary. God, in His providence has seen fit to give us His words in living languages.

English is a "living" language; the AV 1611 is in the English of 1611, not in the English of Wycliffe. Plainly, God provides His word in TODAY'S LANGUAGES. He did NOT retire in 1611.

Then there is still no justification for the hundreds of single language versions.Why? Because English has not changed so drastically as to need the hundreds of versions that have come down the pike since 1880. It is still a living language.
You quote the translators? I do also.

It's absurd for anyone to contend that English has NOT changed greatly since 1611. And also there were MANY English BVs out there in 1611 also. And where in Scripture does God fix His word unchangeably in 1611?

Touching upon the Elizabethan english for a moment. Why is it right and good for a student in school to study out the meaning of words used in his science books but not okay for him to need to do so in his Bible?

For the simple reason that scientific(and medical) terms are often in Latin or are contrived words for a specific purpose in science, most of these words not becoming commonly used outside the world of science...while the Bibles we use are translations into everyday words, same as are the sources being translated. Why should a neophyte to Christianity be required to read God's word only in a language style no longer in general use?


I still contend and submit to you that it is not necessary for the multitude of English translations. What is necessary is for folks to get a bit more serious with the things of God and do a little study for themselves rather than leaning on the "teachers" having
"itching ears".


I do not need to learn a dead language. God raised up very able men to do that 400 years ago.

Same as He'd raised up certain men over 600 years ago, and same as He still does today.


What I need to do, is master my own mother tongue and study the Book.

Then go right ahead. Meanwhile, most of us will study the Book in our own language style as well as in a dead language style. "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."


(side note) I find it interesting that with all your professors' efforts not withstanding, that you still are concerned that this so called sect is growing. You cannot seem to 'stem the tide' can you?

Actually, the sect itself is NOT growing...it's merely a small but vocal minority. What's growing is the cash cow found by certain authors who take the same ole garbage and put it into a new, differently-colored bag.

Without Scriptural support, the KJVO myth is dead.

 

"that you still are concerned that this so called sect is growing. You cannot seem to 'stem the tide' can you?"
"
My personal concern is those KJVO's that travel abroad and start conning people who don't have English as their first language into believing that the KJB is the only good Bibleversion on earth.

 

Dear Bro, you stated

Yes, but King James and all his merry men are most definitely dead.

Tell that to King James and his 47 scholars who studied these “dead” languages and several of the English translations circulating at the time (oops, can’t they are all dead).

Where in any of my posts have I said that one must study Hebrew and Greek?

The proliferation of translations is a good thing for the following reason:

Apparently the KJV translators didn’t take your advice since they added the Apocrypha to the “Holy Bible”.

Whether this is true or not is not the essential issue. The essential issues are the error that 1) the 1611 KJV of the Bible is in and of itself the inspired Word of God whose English corrects the Hebrew and Greek and 2) all “errors” in the 1611 KJV of the Bible are “advanced revelation” e.g. the Greek word “passover-pascha” actually equals “easter” in Acts 12:4.

Who here has said that it is not a good thing to study one's Bible?

If God has gifted one with wisdom and understanding or given one a facility with langauge, add the study of Hebrew and Greek by all means otherwise study what you can with the ability that God has given you and if you prefer the KJV, fine, Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Who are you to judge another as to having "itching ears" and not being serious as to the "things of God"?

Why do KJVO always end up issuing insult and innuendo when their own arguments are turned and applied to them?

One advantage that a “dead” language has over a dynamic language such as English: It never changes. As Jesus predicted not one jot or tittle would pass away. BTW there are no jots and tittles in the AV1611, they only exist in the Hebrew text.

As He does for this generation (unless the Psalm 12 promise doesn’t include “this generation”)

Your mother tongue is NOT Elizabethan-Jacobean English.

KJV Philemon 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

NKJV Philemon 1:20 Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in the Lord.

HankD

 

While I respect the opinions of all they who would hold to your views, I find it incredible that you do not (apparently) extend the same courtesy.

Your answers do indeed give me cause to stop and ponder my position. As yet however, you have given me nothing (IMO) with which to change my opinion.

One thing Dr.Bob has said gives rise to alarm bells however. He personally would have all believers to learn Greek and Hebrew. I submit this is unrealistic. For obvious reasons.

I am not so unflexible as to discount you guys' answers and comments. I have looked at them with what I believe is an open mind. I am just not convinced, as yet.
In His service;
Jim

 

"Young Man"? Why, thank you. ANd I never had to stay for detention, so you'll have to show me the ropes.

Actually, I was showing grace, Jim. King James Version Onlyism is such a load of bull pucky, and it is all I can do to not go into a rant about it.

Dr.Bob is right, though. It would serve every believer who wants to read the bible for himself (no, I am not politically correct) to study the original languages. While I have not had the means as of yet (soon, very soon), I do know how to use reference books, and am not afraid to stand on the shoulders of giants to understand the word of God better.

For instance, if I had never investigated the underlying Greek of John 21, I would not understand the nuances of the conversation between Peter and Jesus. I would not understand the reason why Peter was so distraught, since both he and Jesus seemed to be saying the same thing (and in most, if not all, English translations, they are). But when I looked into the Greek, I saw that Jesus and Peter were using different terms, with slightly different meanings, one stronger and deeper than the other. And, in the last interchange, Jesus dropped down to Peter's level, which caused Peter such anguish...

There is a very great need for every believer to as least be familiar with how to look to the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Intense study at a seminary is not absolutely required, but a willingness to search for the truth is.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Learning Greek does not bother me. (yeah right!)
In fact I have had two whole semesters of it. No really I did! Worst year of my life. Next to the time in prison, but that is for another thread. It is no more a "Holy" language than English.

Why do I disdain it? Because I can read English quite well thank you.

When I see you fellers saying things like ;
'a really serious student of the Word'
'a great need for every believer'
'a willingness to search for the truth'
'great nuances of the grrreeeekk'
'blah blah blah'

I think to myself; Now don't they sound so "spurchual".
Ok. That was uncalled for. Sorry. But that is what comes across to me from you guys. It is like you got some "deep nugget of truth" that we poor underprivileged few cannot grasp. It reminds me of the RCC when they locked away the Scriptures from the everyday man. Exactly what you would accuse us of when we hold to the Scriptures in the KJV.
So you see. From my point of view, you are really no better than the accusations you hurl at us. For you do the same thing. Only instead of Elizabethan English, you use the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Latin as your weapon of choice.
This is the way I see you guys.
Convince me I am wrong. Please?
In His service;
Jim

 

Amen, Brother Dr. Bob -- Preach it!!!

 

"It is no more a "Holy" language than English."
"
No but it is a very different language, making an English translation that captures all the nuances of the Greek is a lot more complicated than doing a similar translation of a Latin text into Italian.

"It is like you got some "deep nugget of truth" that we poor underprivileged few cannot grasp."
"
That is why I despise the KJVO-movement when it comes abroad. It's members often treat the 'furriners' in exactly the way you describe.

 

I posted this quote before, but for starters it is good (not necessarily better) to study the Hebrew and Greek for the following reason...

These "dead" biblical languages (along with Latin) are the most well documented in human history with myriads of dictionaries, lexicons, grammars commentaries along with a plethora of translations into other tongues to be analyzed and compared.

The KJV translators reason that after these comparisons they went back to the original languages for final determination of the 1611 English text because they were "the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by the Prophets and Apostles".

There is no way to make their statement any more sublime. God did not speak to the Prophets and Apostles in 1611 English.

To catch every nuance of every word then this is the place we need to study and/or to have a variety of translations as the KJV translators (and one of their favorite cannonized saints) recommend:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures".

HankD

 

I wonder why they would quote a catholic for their authority in variety of tranlsations?
And I also wonder why you do?
In His service;
Jim

 

AV1611Jim:I wonder why they would quote a catholic for their authority in variety of tranlsations?

Because, as Anglicans, they were neo-catholics themselves.


And I also wonder why you do?

He was quoting the translators who had quoted a Catholic. And remember that the TR's first 3 editions were made by a Catholic...and it was a Catholic council who determined the canon we use today, a council convened before the RCC went completely overboard.

 

I know that is what he did rb3.
And I know that is what happened.
My question lies still unanswered.
Why do you quote a catholic for your authority to use a "variety" of translations?
In His service;
Jim

 

I wasn't, I was quoting the KJV Anglo-Catholic translators quoting their favorite Saint.
Besides, Catholics are not always wrong just most of the time.

HankD