AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Greek, Hebrew, Scholary Articles: To Use or Not to Use, That is the Question (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264)

freesundayschoollessons 05-18-2008 07:08 PM

Greek, Hebrew, Scholary Articles: To Use or Not to Use, That is the Question
 
I am interested in knowing what the strict KJVOnly thinks about using the Greek, Hebrew and scholars.

There are articles on av1611.com that are written by scholars. There are also discussion on the Greek and Hebrew.

Diligent, please do not view this as a personal affront, but why do you write the following if you are willing to use the original biblical languages and scholarly articles? This seems inconsistent.

Quote:

But it is apparant that there are people who have nothing better to do than to actively seek an undermining of peoples' faith in the Bible and try to build up secondary authorities (ie, the elusive "The Greek" or other scholars). I have already banned some of the most egregious offenders, but I am wondering if a more stringent policy is warranted.

bibleprotector 05-18-2008 08:03 PM

Bible Scholars are good. Bible Hebrew was good. Bible Greek was good.

"Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?" (Isaiah 33:18).

Most people are looking at the wrong scholarship today.

As for the Bible original languages, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11). One other language is set up by God. "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16). What is that book? Where is the perfect Word of God extant today?

And again, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Prov. 30:4, 5).

The pure Word of God reveals God's true name, JEHOVAH. It is the Bible that has every word pure. It is the King James Bible.

Diligent 05-18-2008 08:52 PM

Any use of "the Greek" and "the Hebrew" (I put them in quotes because you have not identified which Hebrew and Greek) should only be in support of the received text of the Bible -- which is wholly and completely available in the King James Bible.

When I was new to this subject, I wanted to read what people who were learned in the original languages had to say about it, and this is why I think it is at least somewhat useful to offer this support on the website. I eventually matured to the point where I understand that it is not so important, because I have accepted by the logic of faith that the King James Bible lacks nothing that the originals carried -- especially authority.

Now, to a more important issue: if you find any article on this web site that uses the Greek or Hebrew to "correct" the KJV, please do point it out to me. Every time you have pointed to the "originals" you have done so to undermine the KJV -- that is quite a bit different from the articles on this web site, which point to the "originals" in vindication of the KJV and against the Criticial Texts.

I hope that clears it up.

freesundayschoollessons 05-18-2008 09:57 PM

Quote:

Any use of "the Greek" and "the Hebrew" (I put them in quotes because you have not identified which Hebrew and Greek) should only be in support of the received text of the Bible -- which is wholly and completely available in the King James Bible.
I have the TR, MT, BHS, NA26.

"should only be in support of the received text" That is ludicrous. Of course, I understand why you must say this, but that nullifies any real discussion of the Greek and Hebrew. There are plenty of places in the KJV that have no Greek or Hebrew behind them. God forbid....God speed. just to name a couple.

bibleprotector 05-18-2008 11:20 PM

Since the King James Bible is first an independent variety of the Received Text, it is valid as the authority on textual judgment. And second, since it is also a completely accurate sense for sense translation, the sense of the original must have been "God forbid" and "God speed", despite claims of unbelievers to the contrary. In other words, it matters not what men say the "originals" had, we have the providentially supplied Word that comes by direct link from the inspiration of the autographs all the way by unbroken lineage to the present. Our King James Bible shows us that Paul wrote "God forbid" (not of course in English).

Steven Avery 05-19-2008 06:07 AM

Hi Folks,

Many ludicrous and nonsensical notions are put forward to attempt to correct the pure Bible from 'the Greek' or 'the Hebrew' or arcane sources such as cognate languages. John Hinton has a whole series of articles exposing this nonsense with sound scholarship. To do so, obviously, he references the Hebrew or the Greek, and John has strong language background.

The mistakes are often so strange that often a non-scholar can easily research and refute the modern version errors, where they have attempted to 'correct' the historic Bible in translation (this discussion is much more about translation than text). An example. Skeptics and anti-missionaries and islamists and others understandably all use the modern version translation error of Jeremiah 8:8 in order to attack the Bible (the 'liar's paradox'). A little research and discussion and you can lay out truth from falsehood. The article or post you write will, by necessity and to teach and share, mention or analyze 'the Hebrew' in some depth. (Although a significant part will be simply aspects like lexicon cross-reference within Jeremiah and contextual understanding within the chapter.)

If a King James Bible believer never mucks around in that world, they will still be 100% sound, reading the pure and perfect word of God. There is absolutely no requirement for a Bible believer to know these issues. And if some of us take the time and effort to demolish strongholds, we will use the tools needed on the proper battleground. Where the errors are made by the Bible correctors, we will use our skills and also a sound mind by the grace of God to correct the errors and help share the pure and perfect word of God. And one benefit to us may be that we learn more about the word of God as we study scripture with scripture.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 05-19-2008 07:21 AM

winebibber or ascetic
 
Hi Folks,

And whatever we do will be attacked on one side or another by some modern-versionists.

e.g. When we show textual or language support for the pure Bible, they have a whole routine about how we accept textual criticism (not on this forum, but on forums with lots of Bible correctors and confusers). And thus we should accept this or that. This goes on and on even when we patiently explain to them our view and dissect their fallacies.

And if we simply hold up the English King James Bible, then they go on about the need to know the textual MSS and the original language ideas and this and that. How could we be only a ploughman (and not a seminarian pharisee dribbling out God's wisdom in dribbles to the uneducated) ? Their attack is that without all this background and edumacation .. how could we have conviction that the King James Bible in our hands is pure ?

Please note: the Lord Jesus (compared to John the Baptist) ran into this same type of two-sided attack, as referenced in Matthew 11 and Luke 7.

Winebibber or ascetic, they get you coming and get your going.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

chaplainles 05-19-2008 11:33 AM

Short answer of course it is OK to use Hebrew Greek and Scholars. Bible Believers are not a bunch of ignoramuses! :p

Heres the rub, it depends HOW you use them.... A Bible Believer will know what is said etc but they are not like Bible correctors who love to parade their ignorance by quoting their miniscule knowledge of Greek/Hebrew or appealing to Dr.Flap Doodle or whoever. :eek:

As Bro.Avery has aptly stated in his posts, Bible Correctors want it both ways, they can use other authorities but when a Bible Believer confronts them with what should be an acceptable 'authority' to the corrector they cry foul.

It sure makes me wonder how sincere some correctors are when asking questions. :rolleyes:

Beth 05-19-2008 12:21 PM

Scholarolatry
 
SCHOLAROLATRY


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns181.html
Quote:

Learning is important, and I do not despise any effort a man can make to learn the Word of God more perfectly. Get all the degrees you can if your goal is the mastery of the Holy Bible. I refuse, though, to respect a man who is puffed up with his own conceit. I am not against seminary training in principle, but it is a fact that the bulk of seminary education today is the philosophical study of fallible man which results in uncertainty and foolish questionings instead of the practical study of God's infallible Word which results in confidence in the Bible, holiness of life, and zeal for the truth.

I see two problems with the broad use of credentialed titles among preachers. First, too often the title is meaningless. What sense is it to have Dr. before your name if you can't even write a proper paragraph in the king's English? Second, too often the title is a matter of pride. The late Evangelist Lester Roloff said it well when someone wanted to bestow upon him an honorary degree. He commented, ăIt would be like tying a pretty ribbon on a hog's tail.ä Brethren, if we will be honest, all of us are mere hog's tails. God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; let's not act pretentious, not with our honorary degrees, nor with our earned degrees.

The wisdom commended by God is a practical wisdom, not a theoretical one. The late J. Vernon McGee, who made it his life's aim to take the Word of God and explain it and apply it, said the Bible had to get down to ăwhere the rubber meets the road.ä Sadly, Dr. McGee compromised in some matters, but I like his saying. Godly wisdom is a skill in understanding and applying the truth of God's Word to the needs of life and the work of God.

WAS JESUS CHRIST A SCHOLAR?


The Lord Jesus Christ did not submit Himself to the popular religious schools of His day, and He spoke in such a way that the common man could understand Him. His proud detractors stumbled at this Wisdom. They exclaimed, ăHow knoweth this man letters, having never learned?ä (Jn. 7:15). Jesus Christ was not a scholar.

WERE THE APOSTLES SCHOLARS?

For the most part the Apostles were common men who were called by Jesus Christ to write the last chapters of the Bible and to establish the first churches. The Lord Jesus put these men through an intensive course in knowledge and wisdom, but it was not in a classroom; it was not theoretical. It was not ă\ivory tower or arm chair theology. He taught them a practical, spiritual wisdom. Jesus Christ did not establish a seminary; He established a church. He did not grant degrees; He taught them how to do the work of God in this wicked, Hell-bound world. The Apostle's proud detractors did not recognize nor understand the wisdom God had given them. In their enemiesâ estimation, they were unlearned and ignorant men (Acts 4:13). The Pharisees were consumed with scholarolatry. My friends, I contend that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were some of the wisest men who have ever walked this earth. They were wiser even than the mighty prophets of Old, because they had greater Revelation. They were common men, but God gave them eternal wisdom. They were not scholars, though.

WERE THE PASTORS OF THE EARLY CHURCHES SCHOLARS?

The qualifications for pastors is given in 1 Timothy and Titus, and I don't find anything there about the necessity of having a D.D. or a Th.D. or even an M.Div. The qualifications have to do with spiritual living and practical application of the Scriptures to life and the work of God. Could the pastor, then, be ignorant? Indeed not. He has to be skillful in handling the Word of God--no small feat. The pastor has to be ăapt to teachä (1 Tim. 3:2). In Titus we see that the pastor must be a man who holds ăfast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayersä (Tit. 1:9). Thus he must have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and of sound doctrine and he must have the ability to use this knowledge to edify the saints and to deal with false teachers. This is not a theoretical knowledge. This is ărubber-meets-the-roadä knowledge. The pastors of the early churches were not scholars.

Consider the men who have been greatly used by God through the centuries. Were the mighty prophets of Israel raised up through the prophetsâ schools, for the most part? No, God individually called and anointed them. What about Charles Haddon Spurgeon? He had no degree, yet he wielded vastly more influence for God in this world than hundreds of his titled compatriots combined. He maintained a Pastorâs College, yet the goal of that college was not to award titles, but to grant men a practical knowledge of Jesus Christ and of His Eternal Word.

Please donât misunderstand me. I am for education and learning. I have been a diligent student all my Christian life. I have studied the Bible and associated material for an average of probably six hours a day for more than 27 years. I fear there are a great many men in the ministry today who are disqualified because they are too lazy to study. The possession of a degree does not make one a student. I am not exalting ignorance; I am exalting Godâs way of education over against the worldâs way. And I am rebuking the pride of man which is behind the phenomenon of ăscholarolatry.ä

ăStudy to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truthä (2 Timothy 2:15).
I also think of John Bunyan. He had wisdom from God, not from seminary.
Quote:

James 3:17-18 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Truth4Today 05-21-2008 02:05 AM

We Cannot Escape It, We Must Confront It, And We Will!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 4856)
I eventually matured to the point where I understand that it is not so important, because I have accepted by the logic of faith that the King James Bible lacks nothing that the originals carried -- especially authority….the articles on this web site, which point to the "originals" in vindication of the KJV and against the Criticial Texts.

So true, so true!

Quote:

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons (Post 4842)
I am interested in knowing what the strict KJVOnly thinks about using the Greek, Hebrew and scholars.

There are articles on av1611.com that are written by scholars. There are also discussion on the Greek and Hebrew.

Diligent, please do not view this as a personal affront, but why do you write the following if you are willing to use the original biblical languages and scholarly articles? This seems inconsistent.

Why I as a King James Only, still present the Greek or Hebrew words at times is for 5 simple reasons.

1.) The English, while being birthed by several different languages, was in our King James Authorized Bible adjusted to the Greek and Hebrew by the King’s Translator’s. Hence, there is a Scriptural and spiritual connection between those languages. Not to mention, that there are in my opinion and that of Ruckman, places where the Greek and Hebrew may magnify the English text.

2.) There are many today that are taught that the King James Authorized bible is riddled with errors, particularly in regards to the Greek and Hebrew. It is our Job as King James Only’s to dispel these myths by showing that our Translator’s produce a superbly legitimate and accurate English Bible.

3.) Greek and Hebrew were both used by God far longer than the English has and therefore must not be cast aside so easily.

4.) If you go to a good English dictionary to look up words found in the Bible you will come across references to Greek and Hebrew.

5.) So we are not accused of being ignorant backwoods hillbillies.


__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

bibleprotector 05-21-2008 06:59 AM

Quote:

1.) The English, while being birthed by several different languages, was in our King James Authorized Bible adjusted to the Greek and Hebrew by the King’s Translator’s. Hence, there is a Scriptural and spiritual connection between those languages. Not to mention, that there are in my opinion and that of Ruckman, places where the Greek and Hebrew may magnify the English text.
If the English is recognised as so fit, it is because it there has been a full transfer from the original languages. If complete, then why go backwards? Surely, God has been well able to get the full truth out in the Gentiles’ tongue?

Quote:

2.) There are many today that are taught that the King James Authorized bible is riddled with errors, particularly in regards to the Greek and Hebrew. It is our Job as King James Only’s to dispel these myths by showing that our Translator’s produce a superbly legitimate and accurate English Bible.
The King James Bible has been vindicated numerous times, all the way from the days of the translators to the writings of Burgon, Hills and Holland. More than sufficient vindication has been given. Thus, it is only those who wish to remain ignorant that may do so. Why argue over the same ground, when we have plenty of proof in the Scripture itself, and in observations of providential signals, and in English studies.

Quote:

3.) Greek and Hebrew were both used by God far longer than the English has and therefore must not be cast aside so easily.
This is a distortion. God has providentially worked for the laying aside Greek and Hebrew by degrees for years, to the point of utterly being for the English Bible around about now in history. Not only is God easily able to cast off one thing, and raise up another, but he is able to do so suddenly if He will. He is the one who can do a short work, to hasten it in the time of one man, and even do strange and terrible things to the confounding of the worldly wise.

Quote:

4.) If you go to a good English dictionary to look up words found in the Bible you will come across references to Greek and Hebrew.
There are numerous words which have become English because of their presence in the Bible, and not because English comes from Hebrew (as the British Israelites say). The reason why there are references to Greek is to do with knowledge and learning and civilisation, which existed before the Christian religion dominated, and it is a fact that Roman words came to pass to be in Saxon before the English were converted to Christ (or Romanism). To use etymology as an argument to stay with the Greek is like saying that Latin and Old English should be taught at school to better understand the present language. I am sure there are more references to either Latin (via French) or Old English than to Greek in our English language.

Quote:

5.) So we are not accused of being ignorant backwoods hillbillies.
First, no one should care if they are falsely accused of this, and secondly, being wise in the world's eyes is different to being wise in God's eyes.

Steven Avery 05-21-2008 07:32 AM

Hi Folks,

My disagreement with Matthew's view here is that he is giving a one-sided position of convenience, more theoretical than practical.

When we are on a forum and somebody like Rick Norris or some of the posters here falsely claim that the King James Bible has wrongly translated this Greek or that Hebrew or the other Aramaic, many of us will take the time to carefully show the fallacies in the accusation. Readers can note this happening again and again on this forum and I can point it out on other forums as well.

Yet I do not see Matthew objecting to our refutation of the false accusations, showing the improper language claims and pseudo-scholarship that is common from the anti-pure-KJB group. In fact my memory is that Matthew acknowledges and appreciates the refutations of false accusations, which posts are often very complementary to his specialty of the precision and accuracy of the English of the King James Bible.

And if we did not refute the false language accusations there would be left hanging a false impression about the particular verses and words, the errors would not be corrected. It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations, and that demonstration often involves exposing the false aspects of their appeals to the Greek and the Hebrew, or the Aramaic and Latin may come to play.

To make the corrections it is imperative to do a little lexicon checking, sometimes the forums like b-hebrew and b-greek are of solid assistance. Other resources as well, with those skilled in the languages like John Hinton and Thomas Strouse being of assistance.

Yet, writing as above, apparently Matthew would prefer that this playing field be vacated, and the inquiring readers be left with the sense that the King James Bible has made certain errors in translation. Leaving this vacuum I believe would be KJB-defense error.

Shalom,
Steven

bibleprotector 05-21-2008 08:35 PM

It is very proper for believers to direct people to the studies into the Hebrew and Greek which have taken place which have vindicated to KJB, and to continue to utilise such studies (e.g. to read and use Burgon, Hills and Holland).

Also, if people have a proper view, namely, that the Greek and Hebrew may be used as a secondary confirmation to the English Bible, then by all means mention and show it, which would include that things may yet be mentioned.

And if people point out flaws within the modernist's own position, this is certainly a valid way of disproving them. However, this is only in the negative, and if a person is convinced that the King James Bible is accurate on the original languages only, they are not yet truly convinced, as they must actually believe the Scripture itself.

Therefore, without abandoning the fortress of historical vindication of the original language basis of the King James Bible, it would be quite acceptable for King James Bible people to concentrate their focus in the positive aspect of arguing for the rightness of the Scripture based on its self-confirming enduring present form. In other words, to argue on the rightness of the English Bible from the English Bible as a self-confirming argument is greater than having to defend or attack concerning the original languages, which understanding should be preserved.

Clearly, people like Steven Avery, Will Kinney and others who presently continue in mentioning the original language studies in a more consistent regard obviously have a function to maintain a knowledge of these things.

And as things are progressive of God through time, I think that it will become greater and greater known that the truth is fully in the King James Bible, which would rightly diminish the area of "furthering" Greek and Hebrew studies greatly, but for retaining the knowledge and witness that the King James Bible was accurately and fully transferred from the originals.

While I agree there should be a maintenance of a preserved body of knowledge out of history as concerning these matters on the King James Bible side, I also expect that there should be a great consuming onto the other side, so that the whole area would no longer be any battle ground but that there would be a receiving that the King James Bible was right, without great studies having to continue in the Greek and Hebrew to “prove” it. And without great efforts being put forth by the other side what a change there would be, which present methods have been devised of Satan, primarily to attempt to “disprove” the King James Bible, and to keep people from believing the book in their hands, and to keep them thinking in regards to error, thereby keeping them in darkness.

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ... But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” (2 Tim. 3:7, 9).

Truth4Today 05-23-2008 11:58 PM

Greetings bibleprotector-

Well, I guess I lean more toward the position of D.A. Wait and Mr. Cloud at this point!

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

bibleprotector 05-24-2008 07:36 AM

I believe there is a Scriptural case to build in favour of converting the Jews and so on not in Hebrew. It says in Isaiah 28:11, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

If a minister of the Gospel is going to the Hebrew or Greek to teach the Scripture, or if their ministry is focusing on the Hebrew and Greek, that would be saying that the Holy Ghost, that is, God, is using the Hebrew and Greek. (And He has for a long time.)

But this prophecy in Isaiah explicitly states that the teaching of the Gospel would not be in the Jews' native tongue, for it says, "another tongue".

Someone might attempt to argue that it was Greek, because the Gospel came in Greek in the New Testament. However, there are several signs that show that Hebrew was the proper tongue (see Acts 1:19), and that even preaching was at times in Hebrew (see Acts 22:2). Moreover, God's speaking to the Jews did not conclude in the Greek language era, and certainly promised conversion of Israel was not accomplished, therefore allowing us to see that the conversion of Israel is yet at hand (see Romans 11:26).

If Protestant believers are to preach to the Jews, would they speak Bible Hebrew? No. Would they speak Bible Greek? No. But they certainly could use English to preach to the Jews. If we take that a step further, one should believe that we shall do so.

Take a look at Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."

What is the pure language? It is not modern Hebrew, not modern Greek and not modern English. It cannot be Bible Hebrew in the primary sense, because the prophecy says that the people would be turned to "a pure language", indicating that the language did not yet exist on Earth. It would have to be a language that would be accessible to all God's people, and would be the basis of true unity of true believers. It surely must be the English Bible being spoken of: only the King James Bible language is pure, where every word has its meaning, and every use of language is exactly proper. (Even the places where it says "a house" as opposed to the places where it says "an house" are correct.)

The Word is actually designed to go to the Gentiles. If the world has one language as common, then it fits that the Bible conducive to this global language is set up by God. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4). Unless we have one Bible, how can we with one mouth glorify God? (see Romans 15:6)

Clearly, it is not the reviving of Hebrew, or a Gospel message with delving into the original languages which must go forth: but the preaching of the King James Bible to the Jews and to the world. This is a provoking approach, and completely counter to the "conservationist" view of the world.

Truth4Today 05-25-2008 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5205)
I believe there is a Scriptural case to build in favour of converting the Jews and so on not in Hebrew. It says in Isaiah 28:11, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

If a minister of the Gospel is going to the Hebrew or Greek to teach the Scripture, or if their ministry is focusing on the Hebrew and Greek, that would be saying that the Holy Ghost, that is, God, is using the Hebrew and Greek. (And He has for a long time.)

But this prophecy in Isaiah explicitly states that the teaching of the Gospel would not be in the Jews' native tongue, for it says, "another tongue".

Someone might attempt to argue that it was Greek, because the Gospel came in Greek in the New Testament. However, there are several signs that show that Hebrew was the proper tongue (see Acts 1:19), and that even preaching was at times in Hebrew (see Acts 22:2). Moreover, God's speaking to the Jews did not conclude in the Greek language era, and certainly promised conversion of Israel was not accomplished, therefore allowing us to see that the conversion of Israel is yet at hand (see Romans 11:26).

If Protestant believers are to preach to the Jews, would they speak Bible Hebrew? No. Would they speak Bible Greek? No. But they certainly could use English to preach to the Jews. If we take that a step further, one should believe that we shall do so.

Take a look at Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."

What is the pure language? It is not modern Hebrew, not modern Greek and not modern English. It cannot be Bible Hebrew in the primary sense, because the prophecy says that the people would be turned to "a pure language", indicating that the language did not yet exist on Earth. It would have to be a language that would be accessible to all God's people, and would be the basis of true unity of true believers. It surely must be the English Bible being spoken of: only the King James Bible language is pure, where every word has its meaning, and every use of language is exactly proper. (Even the places where it says "a house" as opposed to the places where it says "an house" are correct.)

The Word is actually designed to go to the Gentiles. If the world has one language as common, then it fits that the Bible conducive to this global language is set up by God. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4). Unless we have one Bible, how can we with one mouth glorify God? (see Romans 15:6)

Clearly, it is not the reviving of Hebrew, or a Gospel message with delving into the original languages which must go forth: but the preaching of the King James Bible to the Jews and to the world. This is a provoking approach, and completely counter to the "conservationist" view of the world.

Interesting indeed! Yet it is here that I must depart from you within the King James Only parameters. The Bible does seem to clearly indicate that every language should have the word of God in their language. To say as Gipp has said before, that a non-English person MUST learn English to have the word of God, goes against the Scriptures on several accounts.

• We are told that the different languages are significant, “ There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” (1Cor. 14:10) So, not one language with all of its distinct sound is insignificant.

• We are told that God is made known by the Scriptures to all nations, “ But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Rom. 16:26) Thus, implying that each should have the Scriptures in their own language.

• We are told that on the day of Pentecost every man heard in his own language, “ And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:4-8). Their were at least 12 languages present on that day and not one person was made to learn another language other than their born.

• We are told that every language will confess to God, “ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.(Rom. 14:11).

• We are told that the Redeemed are from every language, “ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). God is not a respecter of tongues!!!

• We are told that the everlasting gospel will be preached to every language, “ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Rev. 14:6). The clear unequivocal implication is that every tongue will have the gospel preached in its own tongue.

• In Chapter 11 of Genesis we find that the earth is of one language (v.1, 6), however, this was not good. So God, instead of encouraging the use of one language, “ …confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (v.7). Why would God create all the different languages and then want to discard them all (here on earth) for one language? It is a miracle that God’s word is translated into so many different languages.

• We are told that it is better to speak five words of understanding than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, “ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” (1Cor. 14:19).

• We are told that unknown languages no better than a barbarian, “ 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.” (1Cor. 14:11). The Greeks used this word to indicate anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

• We are told that if you cannot interpret an unknown tongue for someone keep silent, If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1Cor. 27-28).

• We are told that an un-interpreted tongue is not edifying, “ Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1Cor. 13-17).

What can we learn from all this? It is very simple, 1.) No one is forced, told, or compelled to learn another language in order to know God’s word. 2.) No language is greater (in every way) than the next. Yes, English is superior to Greek to an English speaking person, yet, Greek takes precedence over the English seeing that it pre-existed the English and is where our English bible is translated from. 3.) No non-English speacking person MUST learn English to have the word of God, but the word of God should be translated into their language.

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

bibleprotector 05-25-2008 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth4Today (Post 5225)
Interesting ... The Bible does seem to clearly indicate that every language should have the word of God in their language. ... that a non-English person MUST learn English to have the word of God, goes against the Scriptures on several accounts.

It is interesting, and the tone of the discussion I really appreciate.

I said "should learn English", not "must learn English", though I am implying that at some stage it would be must.

From the outset, I agree that the Scripture has historically gone forth in many languages, but that every Scripture quote that says about people saved from all tongues or languages, in the near future (i.e. Restitutional) sense would only apply to their native language, not the global language, which is English. English as a second language is already very common throughout the world.

Quote:

We are told that the different languages are significant, “ There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” (1Cor. 14:10) So, not one language with all of its distinct sound is insignificant.
"Signification" does not mean so much "important" as it means "to convey signals by". The quote is talking about the capacity of creatures to communicate, not in any way specifically disallowing one language. (For example, a person facing temptations may hear various “voices”.) It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

Quote:

We are told that God is made known by the Scriptures to all nations, “ But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Rom. 16:26) Thus, implying that each should have the Scriptures in their own language.
Actually this does not imply that each nation should have the Scripture in their own languages, though the Scripture has gone forth in many languages. In fact, this verse more clearly fits in with the idea that in the future, all nations would have the same Scripture at the same time.

Quote:

We are told that on the day of Pentecost every man heard in his own language, “ And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:4-8). Their were at least 12 languages present on that day and not one person was made to learn another language other than their born.
If you believe that speaking in tongues have passed away, I could say that the implication that preaching in other languages has passed away. If you notice that the event of Acts 2 is different to the normal practice of tongues in 1 Corinthians, where Paul continually lays out the need for orderly public practice and INTERPRETATION of outspoken tongues.

Quote:

We are told that every language will confess to God, “ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.(Rom. 14:11).
Actually, it says "tongue", which along with "knee" must be both literal and symbolic. As for all tongues confessing, this verse is not saying that everyone is going to be saved, and also, that there are many people who have lived, both believers and non-believers, who lived when English was not the global language. However, the Restitutional implication of this verse is that people and languages should at one time in history be all deferring to the Gospel of Christ, though, as I said before, it is not that everyone would be saved. In short, this verse does not prohibit that English or generally one language should be used in the future.

Quote:

We are told that the Redeemed are from every language, “ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). God is not a respecter of tongues!!!
While it is true that people have been saved of very many nations, and that God is by implication generally no respecter of what language people have spoken (since this verse may be interpreted to apply to all Church history), yet there is an indication that while people come OUT OF various nations, etc., they also come OUT OF various tongues. This could imply an abandoning of various languages for a heaven standard language. But if we apply anything at all to the Millennium, then whatever is the standard Earth language before the Tribulation can well be the one afterwards. Since that is to be English, we find that it is likely that God would use English. But one way or the other cannot really be decided from Revelation 5:9, as it is speaking about the past, that people did believe the Scripture and Gospel in various languages.

Quote:

We are told that the everlasting gospel will be preached to every language, “ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Rev. 14:6). The clear unequivocal implication is that every tongue will have the gospel preached in its own tongue.
Actually, this is proof that while the Gospel may come forth in various languages, and the Scripture likewise, that there is ONE GOSPEL, namely, the everlasting one, which symbolised by it being borne of the angel, is singular and universal, and that it would go to all nations and languages. (Notice the word "having" which obviously is a singular possessive.) By this I mean that the strongest indication is that in the future, according to a Restitutional view, a consistent Gospel is preached by the one King James Bible to all nations in English, aided by future developments in communication technology.

Quote:

In Chapter 11 of Genesis we find that the earth is of one language (v.1, 6), however, this was not good. So God, instead of encouraging the use of one language, “ …confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (v.7). Why would God create all the different languages and then want to discard them all (here on earth) for one language? It is a miracle that God’s word is translated into so many different languages.
Actually, it was good that the earth was as one language, what was not good was that man was sinning. Fast forward to out time: people might think that Satan is setting up a one language system for the Antichrist (which is true), BUT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF LANGUAGE. The fact is that today, English is the world's common language. God created all the different languages for a purpose (e.g. to keep nations in their bounds), but He has also set up for one language, namely English, for OUR GOSPEL, that is, for us.

Quote:

We are told that it is better to speak five words of understanding than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, “ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” (1Cor. 14:19).
So, while he never banned speaking in tongues, we should see that if we have the perfect Word in English, and the world is learning it as the global language, put those two things together and the true Church can reach the world.

Quote:

We are told that unknown languages no better than a barbarian, “ 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.” (1Cor. 14:11). The Greeks used this word to indicate anyone ignorant of the Greek language.
The word "Greek" and the word "barbarian" are English words. And the word barbarian actually referred to culture, which included language (as the verse itself shows).

To argue that "unknown languages [are] no better than a [sic] barbarian" is actually a reason why using English, and the Bible which is exactly true, should be used to bring the Gospel to foreigners.

Therefore, unless the barbarians are turned to English, they will be kept in a low position having only imperfect Bibles or modern versions.

And if the barbarians are they who were ignorant of Greek, by the same application today, those who are ignorant of English are disadvantaged, both naturally and spiritually (notwithstanding how the Holy Ghost has worked and helped all Christians, including English speaking ones who do or did not use the King James Bible).

Quote:

We are told that if you cannot interpret an unknown tongue for someone keep silent, If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1Cor. 27-28).
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, except to, at some stretch, imply that the Word of God in the unknown tongues (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and other languages) should be in the known language. Since the world has English as the global language, this would actually imply that other tongues should keep the silence, for their want of interpretation.

Quote:

We are told that an un-interpreted tongue is not edifying, “ Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1Cor. 13-17).
Again, this verse shows nothing on the issue, but perhaps that the Word of God should go forth in the known, global language of English, for fruitful understanding.

Quote:

What can we learn from all this? It is very simple, 1.) No one is forced, told, or compelled to learn another language in order to know God’s word.
Yet prophecy indicates that the Gospel would come in "another tongue", and that the world would hear what Christ called "this Gospel", and that believers should speak with one mouth, and should be perfectly joined together speaking the same thing. Surely, the abundance of Scripture evidence implies that God's Word in the future should be made known to the world and throughout the Church in one language, the Bible English of the King James Bible, and that since God is to turn people to that pure language, surely it is for the unity of the faith, so that people may call upon the true name of God with one consent. Thus, God providentially outworks to bring one common world language for the Gospel, so that there may be an advance in perfection.

Quote:

2.) No language is greater (in every way) than the next.
"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9).

Quote:

Yes, English is superior to Greek to an English speaking person, yet, Greek takes precedence over the English seeing that it pre-existed the English and is where our English bible is translated from.
This is illogical for three reasons:
1. If no language is greater, then how can Greek take precedence, that is saying that Greek, which is a language, is greater.
2. If pre-existence means superiority, then Latin, Chaldee, and a whole host of other languages, including Basque, Manx and Hottentot must be superior to post-1611 English.
3. If Greek is superior to English in regards to Scripture, this implies that the full truth of the Scripture is actually in the Greek, and that in order to know the full truth, Christians should learn Greek (though they may be saved by the derivative translations), and if God is all powerful and has control of language, He would providentially outwork to turn all nations to the Greek language so that they may receive and know the full and utter truth.
4. The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken. And the Greek of today is different to Greek at the time of Christ.
5. Which Greek Bible is perfect? There is not one settled final TR in Greek.

Quote:

3.) No non-English speacking person MUST learn English to have the word of God,
Quite true, but then, if the true Gospel is understood by English speaking Christians who know they have the perfect English Bible, and the world is learning English, and their nations are prospering, and the communication technology is in place, would not the signs and the harvest be with the Word of God in English in the future?

If, according to this Restitutional view, the Gospel comes forth in power to the world in English, what should be done now? What should be done is to set everything up, and move in line with the Scripture, and see the signal providences of God, that the future of the Gospel is in English. If English then, what must be the seed to it, but people believing and doing it now.

Quote:

but the word of God should be translated into their language.
There is no need to translate the Word of God if the world speaks English.

Moreover, the Word of God should NOT be translated now, for deficiency in learning, in understanding the correct form of the Textus Receptus, in learning of the sense of the Scripture, in understanding the full breadth of the English, in other words, it is to doubt that God set up the right men with the right learning using the right language at the right time in history to make the right text and translation of the Scripture that it may rightfully used by us, as is our heritage and destiny.

Truth4Today 05-30-2008 02:10 AM

God Has No Grandchildren; Either You Know Him Firsthand Or You Do Not Know Him At All
 
Sorry for the lateness of my reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
It is interesting, and the tone of the discussion I really appreciate.

I said "should learn English", not "must learn English", though I am implying that at some stage it would be must.

I did not intend to imply that you were claiming the same exact thing as Samuel Gipp; only that the prevalent tone was pointed in that general direction. But, you are not saying that they must learn English, fair enough!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
"Signification" does not mean so much "important" as it means "to convey signals by".

Good thing I never said that the word “Signification” meant “important”. The way I was using it was with regard to meaning. Not one voice (i.e. language) is without meaning. Every one has distinct sounds each with some connotation attached to it. Therefore, all languages have the capacity to convey a message. The context tells us so, for in (1 Cor. 14:8) it tells us, “ For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” I should know this because I served in the Military. Each bugle sound has a different meaning, some mean charge and others commemorate fallen comrades. Each is a valid means of communication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

I am not saying that English is not an acceptable means of communication or that it cannot be used by God. My argument is simply this, that English is no greater than the Greek or Hebrew in every way and that there is no Scripture suggesting that one language MUST be used to convey God’s word. Now, as far as the Jews being converted by other tongues, I am not sure of this understanding. Particularly the verse in Isaiah 28:11.

This verse in Isaiah is not in reference to the gospel at all, let alone it being presented in the English dialect. Immediately, this verse is dealing with the Assyrians and their tongue. The people had erred through strong drink and both the priest and prophet had shared in the debauchery (v.7). The nation as a whole was so sinful, that they were living in there own filthiness and the vomit of their own corruption (v. 8). Some believe that (v. 9) is what the harden leaders spoke and others say that Isaiah was inquiring here. Whatever the case, the people were apparently sick of hearing Isaiah’s prophecies and grumbling about their echoic message (v. 10). Therefore, God is going to cause them to fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken (v. 13) by using stammering lips and another tongue (v.11). That is to say, that the word of God would discipline in the form of strangers with stammering lips to teach that which should have been learned from God in their own tongue. In this case it would immediately be the Assyrians and their tongue that took place when they invaded in 721 B.C.. This strange language would be the sign of God’s judgment not deliverance. So, to insert English here is nothing but conjecture. Moreover, to say this speaks of the conversation of the Jews is unfounded. It certainly is more akin to stumbling and blindness.

Paul the apostle make a clear reference to this verse in (1 Cor. 14:21). The point is that they are a sign to those that believe not (v. 22). Why, to ratify them in their noncompliance and unbelief so that they will continue all the more in unbelief.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Actually this does not imply that each nation should have the Scripture in their own languages, though the Scripture has gone forth in many languages. In fact, this verse more clearly fits in with the idea that in the future, all nations would have the same Scripture at the same time.

Why Not? It specifically says, “…made known to all nations”, now is this relating to all nations in their mother tongue or to all nations in a universal tongue. Mother tongue is a more natural and befitting understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
If you believe that speaking in tongues have passed away, I could say that the implication that preaching in other languages has passed away.

I believe you missed my point. Whether or not tongues are for today is a non-issue here. The point I was making was this, that here we have an example where God used some 12 different languages to communicate to men in their own language. This clearly suggest that we should convey God’s word to men in their mother tongue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
If you notice that the event of Acts 2 is different to the normal practice of tongues in 1 Corinthians, where Paul continually lays out the need for orderly public practice and INTERPRETATION of outspoken tongues.

I am not saying that they are the same. This also is a non-issue here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Actually, it says "tongue", which along with "knee" must be both literal and symbolic.

I do see where you are partially going with this. But I must disagree! Yes, the word “tongue” is being used with the word “knee”, thus, suggesting in one sense that it means a body part. Yet, it is within the context of confession and is proceeded by the word “every”. Therefore, if every tongue will confess, then every language must also be confessing. Otherwise, you have folk that have passed on already that did not have the privilege of experiencing some universal language and will not be confessing. See also (Phil. 2:11). The word “tongue” is being used as a synecdoche, where a part is used to represent the whole. In this case, the tongue represents the speech or language produced by the tongue. Does this not bring more glory to God, that each and every dialect to ever exit would bow and confess to the one and only true God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
As for all tongues confessing, this verse is not saying that everyone is going to be saved…

This is not what our discussion is about. However, just for the record, I do not believe in universalism. Every person one day will confess the truth, but not all will confess to salvation. Many in this life that deny that Jesus is Lord, will after they die know the truth of Christ. Howbeit, too late! (Heb. 9:27) “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
While it is true that people have been saved of very many nations, and that God is by implication generally no respecter of what language people have spoken (since this verse may be interpreted to apply to all Church history), yet there is an indication that while people come OUT OF various nations, etc., they also come OUT OF various tongues. This could imply an abandoning of various languages for a heaven standard language.

The text does not say that English is the heavenly language. I know people that would claim that Hebrew is going to be the heavenly language. But, if you want my opinion, there may be no heavenly language. All people will probably speak what ever language they spoke here on earth, although, we all will understand each language (see 1Cor. 13:8-12). Now this does not prohibit the possibility of a unified language existing in the millennial kingdom. I could be wrong here and will stand corrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Actually, this is proof that while the Gospel may come forth in various languages, and the Scripture likewise, that there is ONE GOSPEL, namely, the everlasting one, which symbolised by it being borne of the angel, is singular and universal, and that it would go to all nations and languages. (Notice the word "having" which obviously is a singular possessive.) By this I mean that the strongest indication is that in the future, according to a Restitutional view, a consistent Gospel is preached by the one King James Bible to all nations in English, aided by future developments in communication technology.

I agree that there is one Gospel! But there are many languages. Notice that it is “…preach…to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” how much clearer do you need it to be spelled out? Furthermore, how does dialect change the Gospel?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Actually, it was good that the earth was as one language, what was not good was that man was sinning. Fast forward to out time: people might think that Satan is setting up a one language system for the Antichrist (which is true), BUT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF LANGUAGE. The fact is that today, English is the world's common language. God created all the different languages for a purpose (e.g. to keep nations in their bounds), but He has also set up for one language, namely English, for OUR GOSPEL, that is, for us.

My point was that God created the languages, therefore all languages are from God and are good. So, all languages are valid, one is neither grater or lesser in every way. In a fallen world, one unified language will do nothing more than unite men in sin. Not saying that any good cannot come out of it, but simply more harm than good will be done. In a perfect environment such as the millennial kingdom, a unified dialect would benefit.

Besides, are we to assume that God, who created all languages, does not understand them all or that He could not use them all to His glory? Can God only use effectively only a certain language? God used Hebrew and Greek very effectively. Are we to ASSUME that a non-English speaking person cannot receive or have access to the fullness of God in Christ?


Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
So, while he never banned speaking in tongues, we should see that if we have the perfect Word in English, and the world is learning it as the global language, put those two things together and the true Church can reach the world.

I do agree with you that Paul never banned the speaking in tongues. Again, my point was this, that we communicate in the language that a person understands. Speaking in an unknown tongue (like English is to many) is to be avoided.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
To argue that "unknown languages [are] no better than a [sic] barbarian" is actually a reason why using English, and the Bible which is exactly true, should be used to bring the Gospel to foreigners.

I must not be following. If speaking English to a non-English speaking person makes us a barbarian to them and them to us then we should not speak or use English with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
And if the barbarians are they who were ignorant of Greek, by the same application today, those who are ignorant of English are disadvantaged, both naturally and spiritually (notwithstanding how the Holy Ghost has worked and helped all Christians, including English speaking ones who do or did not use the King James Bible).

I did not mean that none-Greek speaking people were barbarians in an inferior sense. Paul uses the term “barbarian” of himself and the one in whom he is conversing with (1Cor. 14:19).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, except to, at some stretch, imply that the Word of God in the unknown tongues (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and other languages) should be in the known language. Since the world has English as the global language, this would actually imply that other tongues should keep the silence, for their want of interpretation.

Once again, you missed my point. The key word here in these verses is “interpreter”. In practically ever case this word is used in the New Testament it means “translation”. So, if we do not have a translator we are to keep silent. Therefore, if you go on a mission trip and are in the presents of non-English speaking people with out an interpreter then you should keep silent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Again, this verse shows nothing on the issue, but perhaps that the Word of God should go forth in the known, global language of English, for fruitful understanding.

How will English bring fruitful understanding to a non-English speaking person? The point I was making is that an un-interpreted (i.e. un-translated) tongue is not edifying and will not edify a person whom speaks no English. We must according to chapter 14 of first Corinthians TRANSLATE a tongue into the language of the person we want to edify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Yet prophecy indicates that the Gospel would come in "another tongue", and that the world would hear what Christ called "this Gospel", and that believers should speak with one mouth, and should be perfectly joined together speaking the same thing. Surely, the abundance of Scripture evidence implies that God's Word in the future should be made known to the world and throughout the Church in one language, the Bible English of the King James Bible, and that since God is to turn people to that pure language, surely it is for the unity of the faith, so that people may call upon the true name of God with one consent. Thus, God providentially outworks to bring one common world language for the Gospel, so that there may be an advance in perfection.

Speaking the same thing or presenting the same Gospel is not the same as speaking or presenting it in one language. I have explained the need for one Bible and what I mean here. See A Man With One Watch Knows What Time It Is; A Man With Two Is Never Quite Sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9).

This is an intriguing verse indeed. I cannot say I fully understand this verse, yet I can tell you what I do understand. The question here is this: Is this verse speaking (no pun intended) of a future universal language that all will speak or is it concerning the cleansing of the unclean lips of the people? If it is the former, then many commentators believe that it will probably take place in the millennium and that it most likely will be the Hebrew tongue. In fact, I read somewhere that there are no swear words in Hebrew and have not come across any as of yet (please correct me if I am wrong). If the latter, then it is not dealing with any one language other than Hebrew and the idea that God will clean up the unclean lips of (Isaiah 6:5). Either way, you are the first I have heard apply this verse to the English language. Just because the English language is predominate does not mean that it is the language referenced in this verse. Otherwise, the Greek language would have been the language of this verse. Of course, you might retort that it fell from predominate use thus showing that it was not the language referenced. However, how do we know for sure that English will never fall from predominate used? What bible verse tells us this? To insert English into the text here is pure speculation. Even to say that English is one stage or step toward this pure dialect is speculative. You have the right to speculate and I have the right to disagree with your speculations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
This is illogical for three reasons:
1. If no language is greater, then how can Greek take precedence, that is saying that Greek, which is a language, is greater.

I said that no language is greater IN EVERY WAY! There are ways in which a language can be greater than another. One deals with the audience’s mother tongue. The mother tongue of any people, always trumps any other language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
3. If Greek is superior to English in regards to Scripture, this implies that the full truth of the Scripture is actually in the Greek…

Amen! That is right! The God sanctioned Greek and Hebrew Text do contain the FULL truth of the Scripture. Although, so does the English!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
…in order to know the full truth, Christians should learn Greek (though they may be saved by the derivative translations), and if God is all powerful and has control of language, He would providentially outwork to turn all nations to the Greek language so that they may receive and know the full and utter truth.

Pure exaggeration! No English speaking person need learn Greek or Hebrew just as no non-English speaking person needs to know English in order to have the full and utter truth. So why should we go to Greek and Hebrew? To magnify the English? Yes! To gain word pictures? Yes! To demonstrate that the King James Authorized Bible is right? Yes! No to mention that it does make sense that those in battle for the King James Authorized Bible should know something about the Greek and Hebrew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
4. The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken. And the Greek of today is different to Greek at the time of Christ.

The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken ay? So no first century Christian spoke New Testament Greek? What about those that read the New Testament letters out loud (see Rev. 1:3). You do know that the first century was plagued by illiteracy. Many in and out of the Church could not read, consequently, one person would read the New Testament letters while the others listened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
5. Which Greek Bible is perfect? There is not one settled final TR in Greek.

Yes, there are different editions of the TR, but over 90% (I would say some 99%) is without dispute and is perfect. In fact, most of the variations in the editions of the TR are no different from the variations in the editions of the King James Authorized Bible (i.e. punctuation & spelling). Which edition is the settled one? Fredrick Scriveners Text is just fine! Remember that it was his job to determine the exact text used by the King James Translator’s. I would say his text is prefect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Quite true, but then, if the true Gospel is understood by English speaking Christians who know they have the perfect English Bible, and the world is learning English, and their nations are prospering, and the communication technology is in place, would not the signs and the harvest be with the Word of God in English in the future?

Yes, for English speaking people. Obviously, if they are speaking English, they are English speaking people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
If, according to this Restitutional view, the Gospel comes forth in power to the world in English, what should be done now? What should be done is to set everything up, and move in line with the Scripture, and see the signal providences of God, that the future of the Gospel is in English. If English then, what must be the seed to it, but people believing and doing it now.

The operative word here is “IF”. Again you are entitled to your speculations just as I am mine--see The Garden (Paradise) Restored.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
There is no need to translate the Word of God if the world speaks English.

Yes, “IF” the whole world spoke English. The problem is that the WHOLE world does not speak English. In general, I would agree, but in particular I do not. I know several people that have been over seas (including myself in Iraq serving my country, and my wife in Jamaica on a mission trip) and many in these countries do not speak English. For example, when I was in Iraq I HAD TO LEARN (not them) some Arabic just to communicate with many of them. There are some 6 billion people in the world and G. A. Riplinger says (in Awe Of Thy Word that the English of our King James Authorized Bible can reach some 2 billion. That means that some 4 billion do not know or speak English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 5228)
Moreover, the Word of God should NOT be translated now, for deficiency in learning, in understanding the correct form of the Textus Receptus, in learning of the sense of the Scripture, in understanding the full breadth of the English, in other words, it is to doubt that God set up the right men with the right learning using the right language at the right time in history to make the right text and translation of the Scripture that it may rightfully used by us, as is our heritage and destiny.

Yes, it should not be translated into English, for we have enough English Bibles and more importantly we have the best & most accurate English bible there is or possibly will be. In the words of M.R. Dehaan, a physician who later became a pastor and original head of RBC Ministries:

Quote:

Why is all this confusion of tongues limited almost wholly to the English Bible? Other translations in other languages have evidently not needed countless revisions, versions and perversions, translations and dislocations which we poor, ignorant, stupid, English-speaking morons need. It is quite an insult to our meager intelligence that after several hundred attempts to simplify the translation of the Bible we have not yet been able to produce one simple enough for our infantile, English-trained minds to grasp. (Bible Versions and Perversions, Radio Bible Class. Grand Rapids: MI, 1962 p. 12)
Please, if you could, OUTLINE, what criteria is to be used to determine what language will be the unified language that the Gospel or for that matter any part of the word of God will go forth into and unto the World as a whole.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

bibleprotector 05-30-2008 09:43 AM

Quote:

Not one voice (i.e. language) is without meaning. Every one has distinct sounds each with some connotation attached to it. Therefore, all languages have the capacity to convey a message.
True, but some are more fit than others for the Word’s sake. God chose Hebrew and He chose Greek. Some languages are simple, some are complex. The English language has been providentially chosen because already from the earliest times Christian words were brought into English IN ANTICIPATION of God’s later use of that language, and again, the unique melding of the Anglo-Saxon structure (“bone house”) with the fleshing out of French wordings, giving us a connexion into the Latin and Greek. Moreover, the creation of certain words when no English words existed for Bible words, thus, we have “passover” and “atonement”.

Here is my quote corrected, sorry for the confusion: “It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is *NOT* going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

Isaiah 28:11 is talking about the Gospel. First of all, it is a wholly erroneous approach to limit a Scripture’s meaning to mere context, aegis and contemporary culture. And it is talking about the Gospel, because Paul applied it so in 1 Cor. 14:21, where he specifically lays out that both the New Testament Church and the Gentile Christians would be witnesses to the Jews, therefore, Isaiah 28:11 must be speaking about the Gospel.

Quote:

Why Not? It specifically says, “…made known to all nations”, now is this relating to all nations in their mother tongue or to all nations in a universal tongue. Mother tongue is a more natural and befitting understanding.
ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN TO >>> MANY NATIONS
You interpret
ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN TO >>> (in many languages) MANY NATIONS
I have shown that it is also consistent to have, according to prophecies of the future,
ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN (in one language) TO >>> MANY NATIONS

Quote:

Therefore, if every tongue will confess, then every language must also be confessing. Otherwise, you have folk that have passed on already that did not have the privilege of experiencing some universal language and will not be confessing. See also (Phil. 2:11). The word “tongue” is being used as a synecdoche, where a part is used to represent the whole. In this case, the tongue represents the speech or language produced by the tongue. Does this not bring more glory to God, that each and every dialect to ever exit would bow and confess to the one and only true God?
While I agree that many people of the past would confess in whatever pre- or non-English language at the final judgment, but if applied generally to future history of the world, you are assuming that people will not all know English. How can you be certain that English will NOT be the universal language of the future? I mean, if every indication is now that it is the global language, and it does not contradict the Scripture that there is one primary language for God’s Word in the future.

Quote:

Now this does not prohibit the possibility of a unified language existing in the millennial kingdom. I could be wrong here and will stand corrected.
I believe that there would be one major common language for the Millennium, which is why I think there would be one Bible used as standard and common, the KJB. If then, would not it already be made so to a very high degree before the tribulation?

Quote:

Notice that it is “…preach…to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” how much clearer do you need it to be spelled out?
1. It is not denying the idea of having one Bible in one language.
2. That the preaching to various tongues is a category, that is, the “Spanish” group, etc., and not necessarily requiring that the Gospel be given in that language, though historically it was, and at present it would be as yet for a little while.
3. That one Gospel from one Bible in one language can also be the basis for subordinate Christian things yet being in other languages of the world, but the conformity or standard is to the true English Gospel. (I am speaking now about the future Restitutional phase of the Gospel — same Gospel, but widely and highly revealed.)

Quote:

My point was that God created the languages, therefore all languages are from God and are good. So, all languages are valid, one is neither grater or lesser in every way. In a fallen world, one unified language will do nothing more than unite men in sin. Not saying that any good cannot come out of it, but simply more harm than good will be done. In a perfect environment such as the millennial kingdom, a unified dialect would benefit.
God made languages, yet he chose to speak in Hebrew and in Greek. Now, we also know that He has had the Gospel turned into many languages. Yet various languages are either greater or lesser, simply because there are angel’s languages and there are human languages, and there are some human languages which are little and some which are large, there are some which are “low” and hardly used by the Gospel, and some which are well developed for the Gospel. It “happens” that English is the best.

Quote:

Besides, are we to assume that God, who created all languages, does not understand them all or that He could not use them all to His glory? Can God only use effectively only a certain language? God used Hebrew and Greek very effectively. Are we to ASSUME that a non-English speaking person cannot receive or have access to the fullness of God in Christ?
“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zeph. 3:9). God is definitely saying there is ONE PURE LANGUAGE. If people are turned from Hebrew to speak it, and the Jews haven’t been converted yet, it cannot be Bible Greek, so it must be King James Bible English. And we must assume that the fulness of knowledge is there then in Bible English, and would have to be accessed by those who know English. Now we know the perfection of God and revelation is avialable for all, yet the fullness that is avialable for the Church BEFORE the tribulation would have to be in our Gospel. If not ours, then where?

Quote:

Again, my point was this, that we communicate in the language that a person understands. Speaking in an unknown tongue (like English is to many) is to be avoided.
Again, it is wrongly assumed that in the future, English will yet be foreign to most. On the reasonable interpretation of all present trends, English is going to be known world wide. Therefore it is wrong to think that English is unknown. Since this is the case, you should do what you may to encourage and incite English speaking and preparation for the knowledge of the King James Bible and the true Gospel. (This is to act within the guidelines of providence, as Hills did, to create or keep an environment yet alive for the continuation of the KJB when things were less known.)

Quote:

If speaking English to a non-English speaking person makes us a barbarian to them and them to us then we should not speak or use English with them.
But English is already the global language and the King James Bible is already really the best. Therefore, English should be, as much as it may be, universal, and the King James Bible, as much as it may be, considered to be the final form of the Word, and accepted for its complete perfection. Thus, no one would have to resort to foreign Bible, and delving into the Hebrew and Greek would have been forgotten.

Quote:

Paul uses the term “barbarian” of himself and the one in whom he is conversing with (1Cor. 14:19).
That is a good point. I am talking about a future where no true Christian is a barbarian (i.e. speaking strangely) to any other, no matter what “tongue” category they are of, for the common acknowledgement and ownership of the King James Bible, and a common acceptance and understanding of it.

Quote:

“interpreter”. In practically ever case this word is used in the New Testament it means “translation”.
Incorrect. Interpretation means “giving the sense of”, including rendering ideas in a simpler, expounded or reordered form, etc. If you notice, three people could speak in tongues, and only one interpret, which could include condensing, expanding or re-rendering. It is not merely sense for sense like the King James Bible is as an exact translation.

Quote:

Therefore, if you go on a mission trip and are in the presents of non-English speaking people with out an interpreter then you should keep silent!
True that foreignese is not going to edify people who don’t know that language, though the verse specially is talking about tongues (unknown), not known languages to the speaker, nevertheless, if the foreigners knew English, we could not classify English as unedifying.

Quote:

How will English bring fruitful understanding to a non-English speaking person?
This is the wrong question. The question should be, How will English-speaking preaching of the pure King James Bible language be anything but the most bountiful thing for the people of other nations who also hold English as a global tongue? And, in the Restitution of the Gospel, why would those who do not yet not know English resist every avenue being made to them of getting the Gospel and pure Word, especially because the signs of the pure Word are shown forth to them and to the world?

Quote:

Speaking the same thing or presenting the same Gospel is not the same as speaking or presenting it in one language.
Ultimately, speaking one Gospel and with one mouth and the same thing is at least the BEST to be occurring in one language, if the best in theory, why not is practice, especially when prophecy indicates this?

Concerning: "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9). A person cannot disagree with me, and call why interpretation mere speculation when they do not themselves know what the verse means. How could they be certain that I am wrong? That is illogical.

Quote:

So why should we go to Greek and Hebrew? To magnify the English? Yes!
If so, then the English would be seen as superior and present and full and perfect WITHOUT need for recourse to the Hebrew and Greek. Yet, there is no true magnification of the English while it is put on crutches or stilts to the original languages. The authority of the English Bible is not derivative, it is cumulative, that is, supersucessionary.

Quote:

To gain word pictures? Yes!
NO! The full force of the meaning, the full sense, the exact message is in English, it is either idle fancy or else deception to run over to some “illustrative” formation of the Greek wording, or to wonder at how they tingled the ears of the original audience, and to find how refreshing the hidden meanings are, which meanings must be ascertained as a form of magic. Are not the words of the KJB accurate and exact? Are not the subtle differences between things like “glittering” and “glistering” worlds apart in meaning, full of majesty, exactness, accuracy, life, vigour, comeliness and every other virtue of truth?

Quote:

To demonstrate that the King James Authorized Bible is right? Yes!
The King James Bible is the authority, whereby all studies and delvings into the Hebrew and Greek may be judged. How often such adventures must be judged as wanting, foolish, even devilish. Instead of showing the correctness of the English, and perhaps showing how it came about that way (as we might find in Burgon, Hills and Holland), we instead hear of the importance of the original languages: something which is laughable, for that all the truth is at hand, the Holy Ghost standing by, that we might have nothing wanting, nothing deficient, nothing yet to be fished, dredged or scouted out of the Greek or Hebrew labyrinths.

Quote:

No to mention that it does make sense that those in battle for the King James Authorized Bible should know something about the Greek and Hebrew.
As if it is required for God’s children today to know Bible Greek or Bible Hebrew. If so, the Holy Ghost has singularly failed at provisioning the Church or the world with a broad and general knowledge of these things, and has failed to show any finality or complete certainty in such matters. What a weak God we would serve. But and if, if we, or yet a man in any nation, can turn in one and the selfsame book, and be filled with the secret knowledge of eternal life in befitting words made public: how great a sign is this!

Quote:

The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken ay?
Yes. Of course the God “spoke” it, and where direct speech is recorded, or where a letter was obviously dictated, men spoke the words, but as far as the grammar and usage of the New Testament words being “ordinary Greek”, NO, we are witnessing God’s use of written Greek, and that rendered in English, which is also not “ordinary English”, but God’s providential use of English for His Word, otherwise known as Biblical English.

Therefore, there was “Greek” and there was “Bible Greek”, just as we today have “English” and “Bible English”. It is obvious that the English of the Bible is different to the normal written and spoken English of men.

Quote:

Scriveners Text is just fine! Remember that it was his job to determine the exact text used by the King James Translator’s. I would say his text is prefect.
Even though he only conjectured what the translators used, and limited himself to the Greek, and even changed things in his Greek to the KJB. His text contains errors, because a few of his wordings do not match the KJB.

There can be only one final standard. It is not in Greek. It is the English Bible. Clearly, the King James Bible is the final version text (none perfectly exists in Greek), and it is an exact translation (no commentator/interpreter/lexicon/etc. today is fully agreeing).

Quote:

For example, when I was in Iraq I HAD TO LEARN (not them) some Arabic just to communicate with many of them.
This describes a past, imperfect, non-Gospel and less developed situation. It cannot be applied to the future, to greater perfection of knowledge, to specific work of the Gospel or to the greater outworking of providence in this regard.

Quote:

That means that some 4 billion do not know or speak English.
Is not God at work? Is He too weak? We are looking at the fulfilment of prophecy, as yet to sight unfulfilled.

Quote:

Please, if you could, OUTLINE, what criteria is to be used to determine what language will be the unified language that the Gospel or for that matter any part of the word of God will go forth into and unto the World as a whole.
I will endeavour to gather a few arbitrary points without presenting a thorough or even fully ordered view of the subject at hand:

Three areas:
A. The past, what does history show?
B. The present, what does providence show?
C. The future, what does prophecy show?

In regards to seven areas:
1. The Word
2. The Church
3. Language
4. Nations
5. Communication technology
6. Harvest

1. A. The best Bible was the AV, above all others
1. B. The AV can be shown to be final, supersuccessionary to the originals, other translations and other English Bibles
1. C. That only ONE book is common, implied by Isaiah 34:16, Psalm 40, etc.

2. A. The English Church was the best out of the Reformation
2. B. The highest attainment and most of the remnant is in English-speaking nations with the greatest understanding
2. C. That there is to be a unified body of true believers in the future, see John 17:21-23, Eph. 4:13, etc.

3. A. That the English language has been used very widely in Bible printing and missionary endeavour
3. B. That the English language is now global, and the King James Bible very widely known and accessible
3. C. That “another” “pure” language is to be used, as shown in Isaiah 28:11 and Zeph. 3:9, this cannot be Bible Hebrew, because it must be another, turned from it, it cannot be Bible Greek, because the Jews were not converted by it, and there is no “pure” OT in Greek, and it must have not yet come to pass the fulfilment of the prophecy, because then the Jews would have been converted, and the name of God revealed, as yet uncertain to many: but there is one Bible and one Gospel which is prepared for them, though they have rejected it, and there would always be some rejection until the tribulation, when the Jews would finally fully be converted. Therefore, it must be before the tribulation that this “other” tongue exists, which is the one which must be common, and give them and the world access to the true Word, which is of course English, and for the purpose of the final and true and pure Bible. (The KJB is better than any Bible ever, because even the originals were not all in one volume together.)

4. A. That England, America and British Commonwealth nations have been the primary and best vessels of God for the Gospel in history
4. B. That at present the highest forms of Christianity are in the English-speaking nations of the USA and the UK, passing over into Australia and New Zealand, and also into many nations and the world
4. C. That God would yet use certain nations for the Gospel, as he said, “from the uttermost part of the earth”, “from the ends of the earth”, see also Matthew 21:43, Rom. 10:19, etc.

5. A. That the printing press was utilised for the Gospel and Word in Britain in abundance
5. B. That the internet, which is largely English, has many copies of the KJB, including knowledge of the pure edition
5. C. That one Bible is standard and ensign for all, see Ps. 68:11, Is. 18:3, Is. 59:19, etc.

6. A. That God has ever worked according to the binding together of these five principles towards certain ends, e.g. the KJB in Britain, speaking English, preaching aboard, reaching many and having great blessings and revivals, from the Reformation until the twentieth century.
6. B. That likewise, in the USA we note that the KJB is present, as may be witnessed with the present signs, such as internet development, etc.
6. C. That the Gospel must come forth in power, and that the vehicles for the historical antichrist be consumed, such as, the prestige of Romanism, the Northern Confederacy of Russia-Islam, and the false versions etc., that there is a spewing out of Christ of the lukewarm, that there is a manifestation of God’s vindication of His name JEHOVAH according to what are actually the pure Words, see Proverbs 30:5, 6, (i.e. the KJB) and also, that the whole area of modern versions be exposed as false idols and utter foolishness in the eyes of the world. Thus, that the Gospel going forth would be the continuation of the historical and present trends, which would indeed be in English, since that is both the global language and fairly common among Jews today. This is shown in the parable of the mustard tree, Revelation 14, etc. etc.

Finally, I might add some explanation for the Isaiah 28:11, Zeph. 3:9 in regards to Is. 52:7 and Deut. 32:21, etc. namely, how the last days conversion of the Jews is begun. It is evident that the Gospel must come to them in conjuction with the defeat of the Northern Confederacy, after which God's spirit should be present for the Jews, and that there would be a movement to bring the fulness of the Gentiles in (see Rom. 11:25) which should be preceded by the signs of great blessing for the Christians (see Rom. 11:12), that the Jews may believe by and with us (see Romans 11:31). After the Church is in this period of "latter days glory", there is the translation of the saints. Then the conversion of the Jews is finalised after the departing of the Bride, but it was begun beforehand. This is a very brief explanation of the "times of restitution", which is the doctrine of the mystery, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Col. 1:28), that is, that the Gospel in English should reach every man by us, who speak English, and it is us, because we have the perfect book, and all the other things provided, including the English language itself.

Truth4Today 06-01-2008 02:58 AM

bibleprotector

I will be away for a few days and so I shall not be posting within that time period. I do promise to read your post being very careful to read it context. For I do not want to take you out of context just as I do not want to take any portion of the Bible out of context. I will reply in a few days!


__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

bibleprotector 06-01-2008 05:24 AM

As part of "greater context" to what I am saying, you will note that my last paragraph lays out the seventh, and most important point, understanding of which would be foundational to understanding the rest, being the idea that the same Gospel which progress is prophesied of in Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47, etc. is being fulfilled. The mystery is revealed: to understand such things requires not being locked to a narrow view of Scripture just in its "context". Scripture must be compared with Scripture. Each Scripture is important, every word of our English Bible cared for by God Himself. Therefore, concerning interpretation, Burgon spoke of "comparing passage with passage", "Nay, by no other method can you hope to understand the Bible, than by such a laborious comparison of its several parts."

We find this principle in operation throughout the Scripture itself, where Paul might interpret Isaiah 28:11 differently to the way the Rabbis had. I am not talking about private interpretations, but "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." (Luke 8:17). Again, "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26).

This is why I am showing that it is the King James Bible which should go forth to all Gentiles and the Jews. It is something "foolish", something which "provokes to jealousy", something which is "not", "beggarly", "weak", "scattered and peeled" and yet it is true. I expect that you might have pointed out how the words I list above may describe this idea, but that only confirms yet again that what we have is power to come down upon the princes of this world who did not expect these things.

In regards to a upholding a pure edition of the King James Bible for all the inhabitants of the earth, I find that even Burgon (or even Luther) knew that "The very printed pages should be handled with reverence, in consideration of the message they contain." Let those of the spirit of Babylon claim that we but worship paper and ink, that we have a superstitious deference to quaint English words, and dismiss us as some sort of jingoists, but I say it is to late for them, for that by knowing these words, where they come from, where they are in truth, and where they going is itself a great sign and wonder.

Steven Avery 06-01-2008 06:43 AM

"The very printed pages should be handled with reverence" - Burgon
 
Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector
I find that even Burgon (or even Luther) knew that "The very printed pages should be handled with reverence, in consideration of the message they contain."

A very nice quote, and a good response to the vapid bibliolatry accusation. A little checking and it is from a work of the Dean that is only partly at Google but is available fully at CCEL and Archive.org:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/inspiration.html
http://www.archive.org/details/inspi...nter00burgrich
Inspiration and Interpretation - Seven Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford

Let me not be misunderstood if it is added that the Bible should be
read,--I do not say in the same manner,--that is, in the same temper
and spirit,--but at least with the same attention, as is bestowed upon
a merely human work. In truth, it should be read with much more
attention. But that diligence which a student commonly bestows on a
difficult moral treatise, or an obscure drama, or a perplexed
history,--analyzing it, comparing passage with passage, and learning a
great deal of it by heart,--I am quite at a loss to understand why a
student of the Bible should be a stranger to.--"I do much condemn,"
(says Lord Bacon), "I do much condemn that Interpretation of the
Scripture which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a
profane book." So do I. Scripture is to be approached and handled in
quite a different spirit from a common history. The mind, the heart
rather, must bow down before its revelations, in the most suppliant
fashion imaginable. The book should ever be approached with
prayer:--"Lord, open Thou mine eyes that I may see the wondrous things
of Thy Law!" The very printed pages should be handled with reverence,
in consideration of the message they contain. But what I am saying is,
that none of the methods which diligence and zeal have ever invented to
secure a complete mastery of the contents of any merely human
performance, may be overlooked by a student of the Bible.


Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 06-01-2008 08:50 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
May I step in as a newbie here and further suggest that any attempt to define/understand a word/phrase in the AV by going to the Greek and Hebrew only opens a "pandora box."

KJvisit .. Some of this I discussed on page one, so I will try from a different perspective.

Personally I believe two things are being moshed up.

One is how the church is under the authority of the word of God. For that context, no need for Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. A preaching, a teaching, a word, a study ... all English (King James Bible) all the time is 100% very fine.

The other is how we defend the King James Bible in the public arena. Dissassembling the weak arguments of the no-pure-Bible folks has strengthened my faith in the word of God, the King James Bible. Including the dozens of times when I went on little travels through the realms of lexicons and other language issues. I always end up amazed how simply and powerfully the King James Bible "got it right". As a side benefit some churlish snarling skeptic is sent a-packing. Apparently God has honored my novice attempts to understand a bit more about the King James Bible, including the source texts. And those wonderful articles of others like Will Kinney and Marty Shue who use a bit of language background (more than I have) combined with study and heart and prayer and anointing, to daily refute the bumbling scattershot attempts of the no-pure-Bible folks.

Shalom,
Steven

Brother Tim 06-02-2008 08:39 AM

Though my intellect and my natural desire to win a debate agree with Steven, my experience and my spirit agree with KJVisit.

Steven Avery 06-02-2008 11:43 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim
Though my intellect and my natural desire to win a debate agree with Steven, my experience and my spirit agree with KJVisit.

Usually when you discuss these issues it is not so much for the protagonist themselves, who are somewhat calloused in opposition and mired in confusion. It is more for the outside reader, observer, the interested and seeking party who is researching and listening to all sides.

As for kjvisit questioning the term used here :

"It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations"

I hope Marty Shue would not mind my giving his article on Cyprian and the Johannine Comma, disassembling the confusions and maneuvers of one Daniel Wallace, as a good example. And if the word "stinging rebuke" sounds unnecessarily combative and harsh, how about

"informative and educational sharing".

Shalom,
Steven

Brother Tim 06-02-2008 11:47 AM

or put another way,
Quote:

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Steven Avery 06-02-2008 05:47 PM

Hi kjvisit,

You could make the very same arguments against our posts that discussed the Niagara Bible Conference flawed views that are considered 'fundamentalist'.

Yet those posts (from Matthew and myself) you called an "eye opener!!!".

Perhaps you can be more consistent than looking to awkwardly mold scripture interpretation to match a personal view.

Shalom,
Steven

PB1789 06-02-2008 06:13 PM

Kjvisit:---Got to disagree with your statements above. Not against the A.V. mind you, but there are real benefits to looking up the meanings of the words in the original languages. First example would be in the 10 Commandents where "Kill" is used. The hebrew word is "ratsach" Strong's reference number 7523. That verse has been used from the K.J. for people to try and get out of military service to their country. The meaning of that hebrew word is "Murder". Have you never run into unbelievers and skeptics that like to use that verse to try and show that either there are contradictions in God's Word, or that The Lord God is "two-faced" because in other places in Scripture the Israelites are commanded to kill their enemies..?

Another place where the Hebrew word definitions are VERY helpful is found in Isaiah 45:7. In that verse the translators used the english word "evil", yet the meaning of the Hebrew word is "Calamity, or woe". That verse has been used by some (a former pastor of mine for instance) to say that The Lord God Almighty is the creator of sin...!! {Wrong answer!}

Another nice thing about looking up the various meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words are finding the "shades" of meaning that are in the Greek especially the english word "Love". In the New Testament such words as Agape and phileo and eros are all translated into english as "Love"...looking up the greek definitions are very helpful. There is an interesting dialogue between the Resurrected Lord Jesus and Simon Peter, in John 21:15. Check out the word meanings there. The greek words used are apape and phileo-not eros, as some homosexuals try to misuse the scripture to justify their wickedness.

As for scholars: Remember that it was Scholars of the first order that translated the A.V.. The men tasked with that job knew the old languages and studied for years to get their posts as professors.

Diligent 06-02-2008 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PB1789 (Post 5452)
The hebrew word is "ratsach" Strong's reference number 7523. ... In that verse the translators used the english word "evil", yet the meaning of the Hebrew word is "Calamity, or woe".

You don't need a lexicon to tell you those things. All you need to do is to read the verses in their context, and to compare the word as used in other passages.

I challenge you to actually look up all the occurrences of "ratsach" and hold to the "single definition" of murder. (Such as Proverbs 22:13 -- an animal does not "murder" in the legal sense.) The KJV translators understood the Hebrew better than any short lexicon definition -- which is why they translated it with several different English words depending on the context.

Brother Tim 06-02-2008 07:13 PM

Hey PB, do a word search using the Strong's numbers (quite easy to do in Swordsearcher!) and notice how interchangeable the two Greek words translated "love in the John 21 passage are in the rest of the NT. To put more into their meaning than "love" can really mix up the other locations.

Steven Avery 06-02-2008 08:01 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
I don't understand what the Niagara document has to do with this discussion.... I don't know why those verses do not apply to this discussion? ... Using extra-biblical evidences (i.e., Strong's numbers or Greek lexicons) leaves you vulnerable.

The Niagara document and the refutation of its weaknesses was all "extra-biblical evidences". And by your standards such issues should not be discussed, and false assertions should not be refuted, and your eyes should not have been opened. What applies for discussions about Niagara documents is equivalent to what you believe is true for false Greek and Hebrew assertions. (They should not be refuted, the modern version deceivers should simply have the field to themselves to deceive the unwary.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
The above post would be summarily dismissed by skeptics.

This was an orphan comment, if it was addressed to me. Above, Tim was very properly and correctly showing the abject failure of one particular "go to the Greek" argument that is often falsely used to try to assert King James Bible imperfection. He was even helping the other poster to do his own homework to discover the truth. Perhaps you were not quite following.

kjvisit, I posted on the main skeptics forum and refuted their Bible modern-version-based nonsense for years until they finally booted me. (This experience was a major influence in solidifying my convictions that the King James Bible is the pure word of God.) The posts are still available on the net, such as the early church writer evidences for the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera and the Johannine Comma. And refuting various claims of 'Bible error' against Mark and Matthew and Luke and more that were actually only modern version alexandrian corruptions. So I have some real-world understanding of how they debate and handle their forums.

kjvisit, in line with your comment above .. how much actual discussion in depth have you had sharing with the skeptic crowd, and sharing with the readers of their forums ? Can you point us to your discussions ? Since you assert that you have a superior methodology, that presumably works well in practice, and as you also strain to claim that my approach to defending the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God is unscriptural -- I would like to peruse your real-world activities for comparison. Perhaps they will show me a better way.

Shalom,
Steven

bibleprotector 06-02-2008 11:33 PM

Concerning interpretation of the Scripture: do we limit it to looking at the English words or do we also take into consideration the "original languages"?

It is vital for proper interpretation to utilise the principle of the conference of Scripture with Scripture. Comparing words and passages is going to give a proper meaning, which is more than just reading the surrounding verses.

To build up Bible ideas and doctrines, it is required to know certain Biblical principles on the matter as well as specific other teachings of the subject at hand. For example, to understand the application of something from Exodus requires knowledge of general New Testament ideas concerning the law, as well as specific New Testament understanding of the subject at hand.

The comparison of one word to another word cannot really be accomplished when the original languages are viewed, because the linking of ideas to words would be different in the original languages than English. This is either because the same English word could be used for different original words, or because different English words is used for the same original word. (This is not to deny that perfect knowledge was unavailable, since the Holy Ghost was always present, but now perfect knowledge is accessible by the proper and spiritual viewing of the English Scripture.)

The English is always correct, and the Holy Ghost has made available a presentation of the Scripture which has perfection in the internal conference of it. In the negative, as concerning the original languages, no perfect, whole, complete extant copy of either testament can be produced, and neither has at any time there existed a detail perfect Bible, except for the King James Bible as now received. Thus, the defining of English words, or the proper division between them, is going to be by comparing Scripture with Scripture in the English Bible. This is also especially true and right because the King James Bible has superseded the original language body of evidence in producing one final perfect form of the entire Scripture.

From this, several ruling ideas can be presented:
1. Two passages covering the same or similar events never contradict but always complement each other. E.g. each of the Gospels present parts of the superscription on the cross.
2. That a passage can have two or multiple different valid interpretations. E.g. the prophecy of the return of Elijah was both John the Baptist and yet to a future time, see Matthew 17:11, 12.
3. That the same word can be used differently with two different meanings. E.g. the word "wine" at Proverbs 20:1 versus Zechariah 9:17.
4. That near synonymous words are used properly, each with its own exact meaning and placement where it is used. E.g. "vail" or "veil". Also, when comparing the words in Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:18, etc.

I conclude that going to the originals today to interpret the English Bible is not the usual or proper thing to do, and is in fact counter to the idea that the full and final form of the Word is in English. This is because the "real" Word of God is manifest, finite, certain, accessible, not yet needing to be gathered from the general form among many differing witnesses, or yet hidden in the "original languages".

PB1789 06-03-2008 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit (Post 5460)
Oops! Not Tim but PB.
My comments were directed to PB.
PB defended the use of the Greek and Hebrew.
Another reason I dislike forums.

:confused: :rolleyes: Kjvisit:--- If you don't like "Forums" then why-oh-why are you logged into a Forum..? This is a place to discuss things and possibly help folks out that have questions. Just as Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of ice cream, we as humans will have different opinions about things.

This is a Thread Titled "Greek,Hebrew, Scholary Articles: To use or not to use, that is the Question ?" I read my post above twice and I stand by what I said. I never insulted you---I said I disagreed with you.

The point (hopefully) for believing/using/reading the Bible is to know what the Lord said, and to help us worship properly, and to disciple and plant seeds. We are also called to defend the Faith,,,and often times at least in the U.S.A. (other countries may have other problems) that means talking with and confronting/discussing J.W.s and L.D.S. (mormon) missionaries/ people on your doorstep our your place of business, etc.. Both of those groups accept and use the King James version, but both groups like to twist the words to fit their group's theology.

NO carpenter comes to a jobsite with just a hammer. Rather, he has a toolbox with several "tools" inside, from a ruler to plumb line to a level. Thus, it is a good thing to "know" certain things before the cultist and/or skeptic can turn on you and "walk over us with golf shoes". I choose to use the good reference tools to help out. Example: O.T. word "Elohim" is used by the Mormons to say that there are many Gods. If you look that Hebrew word up you will know to respond to the Mormons that you meet that "Elohim" is a word that shows Compound Unity,,,NOT multiple Gods. Hope this helps you understand my point-of-view...Remember these are forums to discuss things. Bloggers can post anything they want to on their own websites, but here there is feedback.

I should turn in soon as I have to be at work in the morning.


To: Diligent and Brother Tim:---Gents I read your posts above in reply to mine. I'm not a new believer, or a "babe-in-the woods". Maybe, since I lived for over 4 decades in Southern California I've met/talked/interacted/passed out tracts/been threatened by cultists and skeptics and fruitcakes....I've got a different opinion..? I'm not trying to get a "New" revision-:eek: there are some of those already. I'm simply saying that the Greek language has words that mean exact things, and the Hebrew also...the "Learned Men" who translated the A.V. and Tyndale and Luther (in German) were not afraid of the old languages and in point-of-fact this is what Luther kept doing at The Diet of Worms; When the papists would quote from philosphers and church traditions, Luther would quote from the Hebrew and Greek Texts!

Goodnight folks.

bibleprotector 06-03-2008 12:58 AM

Quote:

this is what Luther kept doing at The Diet of Worms
That is why the "New Reformation" is about the same doctrine (faith in the authority of the Word nigh thee), but about having faith in the authority of the Word in English.

Quote:

Luther would quote from the Hebrew and Greek Texts
In this restoration, the "Luthers" would quote from one English Text, i.e. "Text" single not "Texts" plural.

Brother Tim 06-03-2008 06:35 AM

PB, how would you use the Greek to fill out the understanding of "love" in John 21? (referring to your earlier post)

Debau 06-03-2008 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit (Post 5466)
PB1789: =. Surely, you do not consider the Greek and Hebrew MSS to be the Word of God....

Someone at some time, in their common language, did consider these MSS the word of God.

Steven Avery 06-03-2008 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
I offered biblical support for my position. Where is yours? It is wanting....

Tim's quotation of 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 was sufficient.

Honestly, kjvisit, I do not see much even to consider in your position, apparently you are not involved in apologetics including the active defense of the King James Bible as the pure and perfect word of God against either the skeptics or the modern-versionist attacks. You have a theoretical position for which you privately interpret a few scriptures and which you awkwardly insist is truf.

Personally I think it is wonderful that a King James Bible believer like yourself feels no necessity or impulsion to get involved in any technical translation discussions of early church writers, or the translation issues, or Greek or Hebrew. That is fine by me and that simple and pure position is possible because of the majesty and authority and perfection of the King James Bible.

However, on your personal crusade to get Will and Marty and Tim and myself and others not even to refute errors of certain types from the modern-versionists and skeptics and no-pure-Bible-nothings, I wil pass. Such as Tim pointing out on this very thread that the lexicon check would refute the agape-eros-phileo theory of extra-knowledge. You would have to say that Tim's correction is based on Greek and invalid, even though it was significant and 100% truf and has helped many. Teno and others have made that same point very powerfully, showing the great mix-a-mosh in the "go to the Greek over the King James Bible" mentality.

So I will plan to simply bypass what I consider your ill-informed comments on this topic .. far too much time and energy is being spent on far too little.

Shalom,
Steven

George 06-03-2008 04:33 PM

RE: Referring to the "original languages" ("The Greek"?)
 
Quote:

Kjvisit:---Got to disagree with your statements above. Not against the A.V. mind you, but there are real benefits to looking up the meanings of the words in the original languages. First example would be in the 10 Commandents where "Kill" is used. The Hebrew word is "ratsach" Strong's reference number 7523. That verse has been used from the K.J. for people to try and get out of military service to their country. The meaning of that Hebrew word is "Murder". Have you never run into unbelievers and skeptics that like to use that verse to try and show that either there are contradictions in God's Word, or that The Lord God is "two-faced" because in other places in Scripture the Israelites are commanded to kill their enemies..?
Aloha all,

In regards to PB1789's comments
Quote:

"there are real benefits to looking up the meanings of the words in the original languages."
Instead of running off to Strong's "reference number" - you could have "searched the scriptures" and you would have easily found what "kind" of "killing" is prohibited in the 10 Commandments:

Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Matthew 19:18
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Now that was EASY - wasn't it? The scriptures {KJB} themselves are always the best source for the definition of the words found in the scriptures. Strong's, Kittel's, or any other Lexicon gives us men's "opinions" of what a particular Hebrew or Greek word "means", and those works are susceptible to error.

Whereas, a search of the scriptures (comparing scripture with scripture), cannot lead to error - unless the person who is doing the searching has a crooked heart and a corrupt mind, and is not searching for the truth; but instead is looking for a "proof text" in support of a "pet" doctrine or false doctrine.

God may not reveal or shed light on a particular scripture (when comparing scripture with scripture), but He sure won't lead you astray as these men who wrote the Lexicons may - whether on purpose (deliberate) or whether in all sincerity (but sincerly wrong!).

Webster's 1828 English Dictionary may be of some "help" when looking up a so-called "archaic" English word; but I have made it a practice, for over 40 years now, that whenever a word in the Bible has any "spiritual significance" at all, to never trust Webster or the Lexicons - instead I have relied on the Holy Spirit to reveal to me what God has to say about a particular subject or issue by searching the scriptures and comparing scripture with scripture.

This is not only the "safest" route for a Bible believer, but I also believe that it is the "route" that God would have us to follow:

Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

After studying the Bible for 50 years I may not know every thing there is to know about the word of God; I may not understand all things pertaining to the word of God; and the Holy Spirit may not have shown me all of the truth within the word of God; but I have been real careful (prudent & circumspect) to avoid leaning on other men for "understanding" of God's Holy words, since I believe with my whole heart that although we can obtain "knowledge" from other men (churches, schools, etc.), and some "discernment" - UNDERSTANDING of God's Holy words comes only from God Himself; just as I also believe that spiritual WISDOM comes only from God.

Since the foregoing is true - it behooves us to rely on God (not men) for the understanding of His words and to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance and leading regarding just exactly: "What saith the Scriptures"? I am not so much interested in what God's words "MEAN" as I am interested in knowing what he "SAYS". :)



Steven Avery 06-04-2008 05:50 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
You encouraged me to visit your debates on other forums.

I simply pointed out that I had been quite involved on the skeptic forum (IIDB) after you made a puzzling claim about what a skeptic would accept. You can look up 'ending of Mark' or 'Johannine Comma' or 'Pericope Adultera' or Mark's geography or the Luke historicity topics or Asaph or many other topics there if you want to see a bit of how the discussion works on their home turf. Even with the one-sided 'moderation' I was able to share a lot, and I learned a lot as well in my research into the claims of the skeptics. Who were very insistent on using the modern versions. (I even explained to them why this was a conceptual error, how the modern textcritical view is fundamentally flawed from a Bible believer's perspective, as it was designed to actually fabricate errors into the resulting text.)

Then, looking at the way you misused scripture to try to assert that no refutations should be made of any modern-versionist or skeptic false claims that involve Greek or Hebrew, I felt it would be better to simply close out the discussion.

If you really are seeking to learn about the skeptic debate and don't find posts, you can contact me (I just activated my email in the User Profile section) and I will send you some URLs.

And if you are looking for other doctrinal discussions, probably they are best placed in the 'Doctrine' section of the forum. The first two threads you link to you falsely imply are a discussion of the Greek. And in the third discussion I point out that all the grammatical issues involved are fully recognizable in English, Greek is totally unnecessary, although it took a few posts for me to really get a handle on that issue and express it properly. On the first post, any good discussion of the Johannine Comma as scripture will recognize the writing of Cyprian (extra-biblical sources) as of primary importance. That topic is where King James Bible defender Marty Shue very aptly refuted the confused writings of Daniel Wallace. However I realize now that you are not very aware of the discussions involved in King James Bible defense.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 06-04-2008 06:26 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjvisit
.. I have nothing more to say..

Tis fine by me.

Here are some of the verses that you somehow claim mean that we should never refute a false modern-versionist or skeptic argument that references Hebrew or Greek.

Ephesians 4:14-17
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men,
and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,
which is the head, even Christ:
From whom the whole body fitly
joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,
according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord,
that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk,
in the vanity of their mind,

1 Timothy 4:6
If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things,
thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ,
nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine,
whereunto thou hast attained

Galatians 3:3
Are ye so foolish?
having begun in the Spirit,
are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Colossians 1:23
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled,
and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel,
which ye have heard,
and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;
whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them,
and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,


Forum readers can decide whether you have contributed a sound exegesis to come to your conclusion that these verses are prohibiting referencing any scholarship that involves Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin or 'extra-biblical sources' such as Cyprian and Tertullian and Jerome and the Council of Carthage. That these verses support your view that modern version and skeptic errors about the history of the early church writers and the Bible text should be left unchallenged.

Ironically, Paul himself used 'extra-biblical sources' in his defense of the God's word.

Shalom,
Steven


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study