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:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
"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. |
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).
|
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 |
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 |
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: |
Scholarolatry
SCHOLAROLATRY
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns181.html Quote:
Quote:
|
We Cannot Escape It, We Must Confront It, And We Will!
Quote:
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. 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) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
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). |
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) |
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. |
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. • 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) |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________________________ - “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) |
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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) |
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. |
"The very printed pages should be handled with reverence" - Burgon
Hi Folks,
Quote:
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 |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
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 |
Though my intellect and my natural desire to win a debate agree with Steven, my experience and my spirit agree with KJVisit.
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
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 |
or put another way,
Quote:
|
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Hi Folks,
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
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". |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
PB, how would you use the Greek to fill out the understanding of "love" in John 21? (referring to your earlier post)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
RE: Referring to the "original languages" ("The Greek"?)
Quote:
In regards to PB1789's comments Quote:
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". :) |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
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 |
Hi Folks,
Quote:
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.