[bibleprotector]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.