Why Not More Doctrinal Unity Among Greek Students

[Yeshua1]

Hmmmmnnn, I was not addressing the superiority of the KJV, though I obviously think it is superior, but I was making a case that knowing the Greek and Hebrew languages does not give a person the advantage over someone who believes God when he speaks to us in English, UNLESS, he believes the words he is reading. If someone studies the Greek language and becomes fluent in it and yet comes out teaching a doctrine like limited atonement then one can say his studies has borne no fruit for him. What difference does it make what copy of the scriptures one does not believe?

There is no more doctrinal unity among the community of Greek speaking Christians than any other community of Christians. Have you ever read a debate on these forums where Greek speakers argue with one another about how to parse a verb in that language? Trust me. Greek speakers do not agree among themselves about the meaning of the words they are reading. The proof they do not believe the words is that they divide up and create new and better English translations with different and better words so the rest of us can better understand the words, they say. At least they can make some money because many, if not most Christians, speak English.

But, after saying all this, let me reiterate a point that I have been making over and over in my posts. Sinners are not saved by believing a bible, they are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. That gospel is taken to men by other men who are convinced that Jesus came into the world to save the world and will save those who believes in him. A Bible is beneficial to us after we are saved to perfect our faith and to teach us about God and his ways. This is proven by a missionary who has been posting on this forum lately. This man went to Japan to preach the gospel of Christ to them. He learned the language so he could be more effective. After winning many to Christ by his witness, he is now translating the scriptures into their language but he will not send those bibles to the government of Japan or to the general population of the land, but to the churches he has established there. This is how it is always done. It would do no good to send a bible to Japan first and never go there.

God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

A pastor who can learn and does use the hebrew and greek texts would have that to be a benefit to their preaching and teaching of the scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

According to a consistent application of your reasoning, the reason that the KJV was made was because its Church of England makers did not believe the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles so they tried to create a new and better English translation and yet they also borrowed and kept most of the words of those pre-1611 English Bibles. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators would have been unbelievers according to your assertions. The Church of England makers of the KJV were also greatly influenced by the scholarship of Jewish commentaries in the Second Rabbinic Bible, whose authors would have not been believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They also made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, including lexicons made by Roman Catholics. Those lexicons often and usually had as their definition of original-language words the renderings in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God translated into English although they had some imperfections and blemishes. Their goal was to make a better English translation just as the goal of later English Bible translators is.

The 1611 translators would aprrove of the Nkjv, as that edition is pretty much the Kjv for modern times!

 

[Van]

If those who studies and learns and translates the original language manuscripts into English and other languages and yet have major doctrinal differences based on the words, what is the advantage in knowing and studying those languages and why don't they have the same insight since they have the same Holy Spirit in them, if they are born again Christians, which I think most of them probably claims to be?

And, since I am asking questions; isn't John 3:36 (which was the example given above) to be interpreted in a dispensational framework because God does not impute sin to the living after Jesus Christ had propitiated him by the sacrifice of himself on behalf of all the world? If not, what did the cross of Jesus Christ accomplish for me and for you?

Wow!

Thanks for these great questions!

Yes, because the body of Christ is riddled with doctrinal divisions, it very well could be that some of us have it wrong!

Then does God impute sin to people subsequent to Christ dying on the cross? Yes.

Does the fact we see through a glass darkly mean we should not study to show ourselves approved? Nope

When is an individual sinner "propitiated." When God places the individual into Christ spiritually, and not when Christ died 2000 or so years ago.

What did Christ dying for all humanity accomplish? He death (and God the Father's acceptance) provides the means of salvation for everyone. But only those whose faith God credits as righteousness are set apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, resulting in being saved, propititated, reconciled, forgiven, made righteous, made holy, made perfect....

 

[JD731]

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

According to a consistent application of your reasoning, the reason that the KJV was made was because its Church of England makers did not believe the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles so they tried to create a new and better English translation and yet they also borrowed and kept most of the words of those pre-1611 English Bibles. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators would have been unbelievers according to your assertions. The Church of England makers of the KJV were also greatly influenced by the scholarship of Jewish commentaries in the Second Rabbinic Bible, whose authors would have not been believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They also made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, including lexicons made by Roman Catholics. Those lexicons often and usually had as their definition of original-language words the renderings in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God translated into English although they had some imperfections and blemishes. Their goal was to make a better English translation just as the goal of later English Bible translators is.

I am not sure what you believe about the providence of God. I believe God has a perfect will but he deals with men who have their own wills that often times does not line up with his. For instance, it was the will of God to prepare for the establishment of his kingdom on the earth at his first coming, but his kingdom would be established on righteous principles of rule. Jesus said that his kingdom was at hand and he said it to the nation to whom he had made his promises of a perfect king and an everlasting reign over the earth. His kingdom is by invitation and only those who accept his Lordship can be in it and these subjects must be righteous. This is the reason Jesus Christ must die and overcome death. It is so his very Spirit (he is an omnipresent person) who empowered him over sin could be the power of those who receives his rule. This requires that his same Spirit be in them since the flesh of man is weak and cannot attain to this perfect righteousness on their own power and if they could, they could not maintain it. Therefore, it requires a new birth of his subjects previous to the establishment of his earthly rule. Jesus told Nicodemus that a man (Israel collectively, figuratively speaking see Ex 4) must be born again before he could enter into his kingdom.

Now, I could take the remainder of my post down different legs of this truth but since we are dealing with languages we will go down that one. All the OT prophecies concerning his establishing his kingdom could have and would have taken place within his own generation, which Moses said in Psa 90:10 is 70 years. Israel would have had to do nothing but repent and believe in him for this to happen. The Romans would have fulfilled the end times prophecies. This can be proven from the scriptures. The following prophecy would have come to pass.

Zephaniah 3:9
For then will I turn to the people (of Israel) a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

It should be at least mildly interesting to folks that Judah lost her national identity and was buried as a people in the graveyard of the nations about 73 1/2 years after the birth of Jesus Christ and 40 years after the resurrection of Christ (see He 3 now) and the epistle to the Hebrews was looking to an "end" of something during the last 40 years when the door of possibility was still open to them. Jews are as gentiles when out of their land and cut off from their covenants. Therefore, from 70 AD the church of Jesus Christ took on a gentile personality and Christ will one day marry his gentile bride that God, the Holy Spirit, is forming from the opened side of the last Adam even as we speak.

This pure language is Hebrew but one must think more in terms that all the tribes of Israel will be speaking the same language rather than as it is
now when they are scattered into all the nations and speak the languages of gentiles. A foreshadowing of this pure language was given at the festival of Pentecost, fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The men from 17 different nations heard the preachers when the Spirit was poured out on Israel. All of them heard clearly what was being preached. The glory was that out of millions who heard, some 8000 Jews were saved and received the Holy Ghost but the tragedy of it was that only about 8000 were saved. Eight thousand saved Jews out of a million is another way to define rejection of Christ by Israel. But the official rejection was 7 years later in the same town when the rulers rejected the gospel of Christ and killed Stephen, the preacher. God in his providence began preparing a man, Saul, whom he would save and pivot to the gentiles with his gospel.This is the reason the NT was written in Greek instead of Hebrew. His people would be in those nations speaking that language because of their unbelief. There is still a witness from God to them and us gentiles.

All the promises in the NT are new promises and are not found in the OT. God calls these "mysteries of God" and are specific to the church of Jesus Christ, which is his body and his bride in the same way Eve was formed from Adam's side by God and presented to Adam as his wife and they became one.That is the theology of Ephesians
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

I am talking about the providence of God when his perfect will for men is rejected and discarded by hardened and calloused sinners. When this occurs, and God takes a different direction to accomplish his purpose, I call it a pivot point. Politics and power structures and even languages change. But God does not change. He has always pivoted when he knows the string has run out. It does not surprise me that he pivoted in 1611 with his English bible in preparation for the establishing of the greatest missionary sending and free nation ever on the earth, the USA. Legions of devils and men they control and influence have opposed this great plan of God until the predicted end times apostasy is upon us and we are now seeing God preparing to pivot once again. This next pivot will complete the prophecies to Israel in the OT.

 

[Logos1560]

The proof they do not believe the words is that they divide up and create new and better English translations with different and better words so the rest of us can better understand the words, they say.

Your so-called proof would condemn the Church of England makers of the KJV so it does not seem to be very sound or compelling. The KJV translators had the same basic goals as the ones that you inconsistently condemn, and they in effect acknowledged that they could not accomplish their mark or goal perfectly.

Do a consistent, just application of your own statement suggest that the Church of England makers of the KJV did not believe the words of God as translated in the pre-1611 English Bibles and did not believe the words in their multiple, varying original-language texts?

 

[1689Dave]

I use the 1977 NASB as my study bible. But still, grab my KJV as I did this morning, to improve on a major bible theme most translations miss completely, so far as my experience goes.

 

[JD731]

You do not demonstrate that your assertion is true.

According to a consistent application of your reasoning, the reason that the KJV was made was because its Church of England makers did not believe the words of the pre-1611 English Bibles so they tried to create a new and better English translation and yet they also borrowed and kept most of the words of those pre-1611 English Bibles. The Church of England makers of the KJV even borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators would have been unbelievers according to your assertions. The Church of England makers of the KJV were also greatly influenced by the scholarship of Jewish commentaries in the Second Rabbinic Bible, whose authors would have not been believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They also made use of Hebrew-Latin lexicons and Greek-Latin lexicons, including lexicons made by Roman Catholics. Those lexicons often and usually had as their definition of original-language words the renderings in the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate.

The KJV translators maintained that the pre-1611 English Bibles were the word of God translated into English although they had some imperfections and blemishes. Their goal was to make a better English translation just as the goal of later English Bible translators is.

Respectfully, if the philosophy that you display here and your hysteria against the KJV only position is an indication of what you have learned about God in the pre 1611 translations, you are the best evidence one could hope for to prove that we needed the KJV. Imagine having all the Christians in the world thinking like you.

Do you really believe that God calls one subject preachers? I don't. I have never known you addressing any other subject.

 

[Logos1560]

Imagine having all the Christians in the world thinking like you.

You have not demonstrated anything to be wrong with my scripturally-based thinking on the issue of Bible translations. Instead of engaging in serious discussion, you throw out bogus, negative allegations. You failed to prove any problems with my actual statements.

I accept and believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves, and you seem to consider that to be wrong.

The truth is consistent, and I advocate a consistent, just application of scriptural truths.
In agreement with scriptural truth, I advocate the use of consistent, sound standards/measures applied justly.

In contrast, inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning/teaching involves use of divers measures or double standards. It is clear that KJV-only advocates do not judge righteous judgment when they refuse to apply the same measures/standards to the KJV that they inconsistently attempt to apply to other English Bibles.
KJV-only reasoning/teaching is also dependent upon use of fallacies [false arguments] such as begging the question.

 

[JD731]

You have not demonstrated anything to be wrong with my scripturally-based thinking on the issue of Bible translations. Instead of engaging in serious discussion, you throw out bogus, negative allegations. You failed to prove any problems with my actual statements.

I accept and believe all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves, and you seem to consider that to be wrong.

The truth is consistent, and I advocate a consistent, just application of scriptural truths.
In agreement with scriptural truth, I advocate the use of consistent, sound standards/measures applied justly.

In contrast, inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning/teaching involves use of divers measures or double standards. It is clear that KJV-only advocates do not judge righteous judgment when they refuse to apply the same measures/standards to the KJV that they inconsistently attempt to apply to other English Bibles.
KJV-only reasoning/teaching is also dependent upon use of fallacies [false arguments] such as begging the question.

Your posts are proof of my charge of hysteria. You read the title of my op and have no answer for it. You know that there are more dispensational and fundamental bible believers who are grammatical literalists who are KJV only than Hebrew and Greek speakers. Many, if not most, students of the Greek and Hebrew who become leaders in churches and of religious movements do not believe a word of the OT and cannot follow context, logic, and reason from the scriptures.

We have been warned about this in 1 Cor 1-3.

My motto is, "Believe The Words."

Would you classify yourself as a Fundamentalist Baptist who believes in the pre-trib gathering of the church of Jesus Christ to heaven and the pre-mil coming of Jesus Christ to rule and reign on the earth for a thousand years and that a man has soul liberty that includes your will to accept or reject Jesus Christ as your personal savior from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire described in Rev 20?

 

[Logos1560]

Your posts are proof of my charge of hysteria.

That is your incorrect, biased, subjective opinion.

I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years. It does not state nor teach non-scriptural KJV-only opinions and assumptions. The KJV does not teach the many variations of a modern KJV-only philosophy. KJV-only advocates have made conflicting claims that would conflict with each other and that cannot be applied consistently and justly. There is not doctrinal unity even among KJV-only advocates. This thread could be considered a human effort intended to attack non-KJV-only believers for the same thing that is true of KJV-only believers.

Instead of just believing the words, KJV-only advocates add to the words or read into the words opinions not stated in them. They close their eyes to seeing scriptural truths as translated in the KJV that would conflict with and even contradict some of their KJV-only opinions. Where does even the KJV teach believers to believe blindly assertions or claims for the KJV that are not true?

I am a Bible-believing fundamentalist, an independent Baptist.

 

[Van]

Why do we have so much doctrinal disunity? We have all these institutions of "higher learning" granting degrees such as "doctorates" in Theology, yet the "truths" taught vary widely.

Is the total spiritual inability of the lost a valid view? After all the natural person cannot understand the things of the Spirit. But consider "the things." Does this refer to all of the things, necessarily, or necessarily only to some of the things? Thus the speculation of people (with degrees) has resulted in false doctrine being believed as if true. Hence, our divide...

 

[Logos1560]

If one believes they have a completely accurate translations, why test it against the original?

Someone can choose to believe that they have a completely accurate translation by use of a fallacy such as begging the question. However, that would not make their belief to be true nor scriptural. Believing an assumption, claim, or assertion that is not true would result in the person being deceived in the non-true thing that is believed.

Translations should be tested or tried by the standard and greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages because they are translations. A sound definition of the term Bible translation would lead to the conclusion that it can and should be tested by the standard and greater authority of its underlying texts.

 

[agedman]

Your posts are proof of my charge of hysteria. You read the title of my op and have no answer for it. You know that there are more dispensational and fundamental bible believers who are grammatical literalists who are KJV only than Hebrew and Greek speakers. Many, if not most, students of the Greek and Hebrew who become leaders in churches and of religious movements do not believe a word of the OT and cannot follow context, logic, and reason from the scriptures.

We have been warned about this in 1 Cor 1-3.

My motto is, "Believe The Words."

Would you classify yourself as a Fundamentalist Baptist who believes in the pre-trib gathering of the church of Jesus Christ to heaven and the pre-mil coming of Jesus Christ to rule and reign on the earth for a thousand years and that a man has soul liberty that includes your will to accept or reject Jesus Christ as your personal savior from the penalty of sin, which is the second death in the lake of fire described in Rev 20?

Here is a slight difference, for the scriptures declare that the natural man (a man dwelling in the fleshly impulses and who has no regard for holiness, does not receive that which is spiritual, nor does suchh a one even have the will or desire to attend to such matters.

John 1 clearly states that a person does not become a child of God, nor given the authority, power, ability to become a child of God by the will.

Now, I am currently a member of an outstanding fundamental Baptist church in which the KJVis held in highest regard, and I am also a pre-millennium teacher.

However, I personally do not teach the pre-tribulation rapture, for that is not a promise given by Christ. He stated that He did not know the hour, day, time… that it was in the plan of the father and not shared with anyone.

What was promised is that the church is not appointed to the days of wrath, and that specifically is shown in the Revelation to be the time of the pouring out of the bowls. Just prior to that is seen the reaping of the earth as that harvest discussed in parable form by the Lord.


So, though I live rapture hopeful, I teach that the Scriptures state that believers are preserved (…”This is the perseverance of the saints”…) and when such a time does come, do not be deceived by thinking you may have missed the rapture. You didn’t, but as Peter points out, God is waiting for the last of His to be born again, then and only then will we be called to meet Him in the air, or like me, raised first.

 

[JD731]

That is your incorrect, biased, subjective opinion.

I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years. It does not state nor teach non-scriptural KJV-only opinions and assumptions.

You have said for years what the KJV does not teach. Now, please tell us what it does teach. You have not done that.

The KJV does not teach the many variations of a modern KJV-only philosophy.

What do you think happens to a man who believes every word in his KJV?

KJV-only advocates have made conflicting claims that would conflict with each other and that cannot be applied consistently and justly. There is not doctrinal unity even among KJV-only advocates. This thread could be considered a human effort intended to attack non-KJV-only believers for the same thing that is true of KJV-only believers.

My thread just asks the question why there is not more doctrinal agreement between Greek students. Do you have an opinion?

Instead of just believing the words, KJV-only advocates add to the words or read into the words opinions not stated in them. They close their eyes to seeing scriptural truths as translated in the KJV that would conflict with and even contradict some of their KJV-only opinions. Where does even the KJV teach believers to believe blindly assertions or claims for the KJV that are not true?

Do you believe that salvation comes from believing a bible? Do you think Paul"s sermon to the Athenians in Acts 17 yielded any true conversions? If your answer is yes, did he have a copy of the scriptures or did he quote a single verse of scripture in his message to them? The answer is no. Paul preached the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation through him. Repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ was not an option for salvation, but it was a command to all men. Instead of quoting a bible Paul quoted their own authors. Some people in that crowd got saved that day. This teaches us that bibles are for saved people so they can not only learn the words of God but they can also learn the ways of God. Israel in the wilderness under Moses knew the words of God but failed to get into the promised land because they did not know the ways of God.

Having all these English bibles is a violation of the ways of God and these Greek speakers who promote this philosophy and give us a never ending string of new translations are sowing confusion and are violating the ways of God. They do not have an advantage over a student of the KJV who believes the words and learns God's ways. The NIV confuses the roles of men and women as an example of perverting. Who is warning against that? Answer: KJV only believers.

I am a Bible-believing fundamentalist, an independent Baptist.

Is that it? That can mean anything nowadays.

De 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

Ps 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with [this] generation, and said, It [is] a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[agedman]

My thread just asks the question why there is not more doctrinal agreement between Greek students. Do you have an opinion?

Cannot the same be ask concerning the KJV? Some two hundred years, and look upon the Protestant assemblies?

Even the original folks of the day were forced to adopt the KJV, even when they would have rather used the Geneva or Great Bible, they were hunted down and brutalized. The KJV was not automatically accepted, by many under James authority, and, had not it been decreed to be used, may have ended up on the scrap heap of good intentions, but much political influence kept it in places of importance, so acceptance gradually came.

Why do others who used the KJV involved with hierarchy of bishops? Why where the re-baptizes convinced of adult conversion baptism in rejecting infant, brutalized? Did they not forced to read from the same Bible?

I am not discrediting the KJV, but your basic question and assumptions do not resolve the issues you have raised.

Did not the Lord have to straighten out the religious righteous of His day by saying more then once, “…you have heard it said …”

I ask the question concerning John 3: where the KJV reads “believe,” but some others (including the NKJV read “obey.” Why?

Why would there be a disagreement concerning this? Because sometimes there are those who have an agenda and will grasp anything to use not considering that some are educated about the matter and know differently.

The KJV is a great and trustworthy work. So are some others.

As James said, “Be doers of the word and not hearers only.”

If there is ever a need in this world, it is to see far more doers doing the Word!

 

[Logos1560]

What do you think happens to a man who believes every word in his KJV?

He deceives himself by believing assertions that are not true. He in effect sits up his own human KJV-only reasoning above what the Scriptures teach even as translated in the KJV, and he adds to the Scriptures his own subjective opinions.

The KJV itself does not teach a man to believe the words added by the KJV translators and to believe any errors introduced by imperfect men whether by following errors introduced by copiers or printers, by following errors in earlier translations, or by introducing new errors by printers or the translators.

 

[Logos1560]

My thread just asks the question why there is not more doctrinal agreement between Greek students. Do you have an opinion?

Your diversionary question has been answered. It is the same basic reason why there is not more doctrinal agreement between all readers of the KJV and any other Bible translation in any language.
It involves the fact that no imperfect men are infallible interpreters/popes who cannot be wrong in their understanding and interpreting of the Scriptures. As was pointed out, there is not even complete doctrinal agreement among KJV-only advocates.

Even when a country has a state church and denies freedom of religion and soul liberty and it persecutes people for their beliefs, there is still not complete doctrinal agreement

 

[Logos1560]

You have said for years what the KJV does not teach. Now, please tell us what it does teach. You have not done that.

It has been done, but you may have ignored it or avoided it. I have repeatedly pointed out many things that the KJV teaches. Many of my statements are filled with phrases and words taken from the KJV, and they would be affirming what it teaches.

I have posted what the KJV itself teaches concerning preservation--that preservation would concern the specific exact original-language words given directly by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles.
I have repeatedly noted that the KJV teaches that "the word of God is not bound" (2 Tim. 2:9), that the process by which all Scripture is given is by direct inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16. 2 Pet. 1:21), that the wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:17), that believers are to judge righteous judgment (John 7:24), that believers are to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21), and many other things.

Pointing out what the KJV does not teach is part of demonstrating what it does teach.

 

[JD731]

Here is a slight difference, for the scriptures declare that the natural man (a man dwelling in the fleshly impulses and who has no regard for holiness, does not receive that which is spiritual, nor does such a one even have the will or desire to attend to such matters.

John 1 clearly states that a person does not become a child of God, nor given the authority, power, ability to become a child of God by the will.

But, John 1 says it is the will of God that a sinner become a child of God by faith.

Here is a truth:

6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

All that the passage you are referring to in John 1 means is the above. Salvation is God's idea and it is his plan. How men receive it is by faith. That is God's idea as well. Salvation is defined in scripture as receiving the Spirit of Christ into the heart by faith in what God says about him. The previous verse in John 1 says that life was in Jesus and he poured out his life, his Spirit, on the cross
John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

and God sends his life into the world from heaven 50 days after the resurrection to the nation of Israel. It, he, must be in a man for him to live. The analogy is water that is required by every living thing on the earth to survive. Water is everywhere on the earth in such abundance that every one and every living entity can drink, but no matter how much there is in the world, it must be ingested if it brings life.

We have 4000 years of recorded history that proves John 1:14. Nobody was saved in the OT as the NT describes salvation. That is not to say that men in the OT were not justified by their faith in what God said to them, but no one had their sins washed away and they did not have eternal life as God defines eternal life, the Spirit of Christ and of God. So, with that in mind let us review John 1.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. ( How many men? - we must have a preacher - it is the way of God)

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth (present tense) every man that cometh into the world. (how many men? - world = kosmos)

11 He came unto his own (Israel), and his own received him not. (history proves this)
12 But as many as received him (past tense), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

This is written in retrospect. It is past tense verbs because John wrote this many years after he had observed the entire ministry of Jesus Christ and the inclusion and salvation of gentiles as well. He looked back over the whole beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ and he is the only apostle who did. This is the wisdom of God.

I believe there is not a reformed believer alive today who will believe that the only way a man can have eternal life is to have Jesus Christ living in them by exercising his own will to receive him by faith after hearing about him. Jesus lives in us now in the same person as lived, and lives, in his body, the Spirit of God. This is the true God and eternal life. It is what the NT is all about. Sinners must repent of their sins and receive him by faith. God does not tell us himself about this wonderful salvation but has commissioned men who have been saved to tell other men about his gospel. Those who believe it will be given the Spirit, who is Jesus Christ and God the Father, and this puts the trinity in us and because God is forming a body for Jesus Christ in this age, it puts us in Christ and we become one with God. Read Eph 4 now.

Ephesians 3:17
That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

There is the trinity dwelling in the body of the believer.

1 Corinthians 3:16
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 3:17
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Above is the trinity in the believer, making us one with him.

1 John 5:20
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
__________________________________________

Back to the water.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)

One must drink the water but who may drink?

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

No man could get saved until God opened the fountain, but then he explains who may drink. It is whosoever WILL

Hallelujah and praise our God. This lets me in and it lets you in too, if you believe.

 

[Logos1560]

Cannot the same be ask concerning the KJV? Some two hundred years, and look upon the Protestant assemblies?

I am not discrediting the KJV, but your basic question and assumptions do not resolve the issues you have raised.

Yes, the same could be said concerning the KJV. If all English-speaking believers read the same one English translation, it would not eliminate nor prevent them from holding multiple, varying interpretations and understandings. For over 200 years, the KJV was interpreted to support many varying doctrinal views in different denominations.

Yes, it is clear that the question and point of this thread provides no compelling reason for holding a modern KJV-only theory.