View Single Post
Old 12-06-2008, 08:24 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

"Never, never" is the EXPRESSION of the idiom in question (ma genomia).
"Never, never" is not the perfect expression of the meaning or sense of the Scripture in English. This is plain because the KJB is perfect, and it has “God forbid” not the English words “never, never”.

The words “ma genomia” are not English, and cannot be used as though they have a certain meaning in English, unless it is a statement of fact, that the Greek expression was sense-for-sense rendered into English as “God forbid”. Otherwise you are saying, the KJB has this translation, but it really or literally or actually (or at least could) means something else (which is actually what you are defending).

Since the Word of God is settled in English, talking about “ma genomia” is as a barbarian. But we are confident that we have sense-for-sense exactly in English the Word of God, therefore the Greek words “ma genomia” must mean “God forbid”. Notice how meaning is allocated to the Greek from the KJB. Meaning is not allocating in English from the Greek, and it certainly should not differ to the KJB.

In the Smithsonian Institute is a ruler on display that is considered THE standard for what is exactly 12 inches. It is not impossible to produce a ruler that is the exact size as the standard on display in the Smithsonian Institute. God has given us a standard. If we use this perfect standard that God has given us how can we go wrong especially if we are led by the Holy Ghost.
Since we have the standard, it is easy to see that it is not “locked up in heaven” or “the past” or “in the Millennium” or the Smithsonian.

Your insistence that no Bible in another language can be just as accurate as the KJV is totally faithless.
Faithless? You mean requires faith. “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2). Notice how proper reason links to faith. And since the KJB is perfect, and perfection single, nothing else can be perfectly perfect except that single thing.

God did not die in 1611 nor in the Philadelphian Church age.
Which is exactly why He is the God who is getting one Bible out to the world for tomorrow.

By your standard even the KJV would be invalidated because if you want to get technical in terms of EXACTNESS God did not breath out His words in English when He dictated the original writers.
So you don’t believe the KJB is perfect. Of course it is. To be KJBo means you believe it is a perfect text and that it is a perfect translation. If you do not believe that it is a perfect translation then the Scripture in English is not inerrant and infallible because of transmission problems.

He breathed out His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
What’s this “breathed out”? Inspired is not “breathed out”. Where does the Scripture say that God “breathed out” the Scripture? No, He inspired it. I suppose you are constructing a doctrine out of “going to the Greek”. In fact I know your doctrine is not quite right, because you talk about “Aramaic”. Maybe you got that from the NIV or something. I see no “Aramaic” in the Bible. I see Syriack that has been translated into English (e.g. in Daniel). I see margin notes referring to Chaldee. But I don’t see “Aramaic”.

quit using the KJV and become a "TR guy" to the extreme by ONLY using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Unless God’s Word is perfectly in English, we would be stuck in that scenario. Of course, God has many sufficient presentations of the Scripture from ancient times till now, but we have a word perfect Bible which is supersuccessionary to all those good Bibles. Yes, the KJB should replace even the Gomez Spanish Bible. Even if were to take 120 years, we have to do it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the translating of idiomatic expressions. Again, you just don't get it.
Do other good foreign translations have the degree of perfection as is found in the very use of the spelling, punctuation, words and grammar of the KJB? Do they contain glistering truths? The distinction between “vail” and “veil”? The semi-colon in 2 Kings 8:26? Do they differ between “sith” and “since”? Do they have “God will provide himself” in Genesis 22:8? Do they have “Shibboleth”? Do they have firmament, unicorn and brass? Do they vary the use of the rhythm or sound, like “mine house” versus “my house”?

Christ was not mandating His disciples to teach all nations English
No, but this extends to teaching English, or making use of English as a global language, since the perfect Word of God exists in English. I think you have no “perfect Bible”. Because with a perfect Bible, you see that Greek and Hebrew are former things. You see that no other language can get it 100%. But you see that it is there 100% in English, right down the very jot and tittle, just as Jesus said (another prophecy fulfilled in the manifestation of the KJB).

The best way to deal with it is not impose "elements from Anglophone cultures". That is actually the worse thing to do and the quickest way to turn people away from what you have to say.
The Gospel is not based on “popularity”. Nor is it “unless you learn English you cannot be saved”. But imposing "elements from Anglophone cultures" is necessary. Not only things like teaching and the knowledge of Anglo-Protestant religion, but also that the very knowledge of the Word of God is most easily and widely accessed by having an English Standard Bible. Why have thousands of good Bible versions for the world when we can have one Bible for all. And one that is tested and considered best right now.

I said “The basis for the Bible today is not by going back to “the Received Texts” if that means Hebrew and Greek. Why? 1. There is no settled existing text/version in those languages.” Reply: Wrong. There is a settled text in Greek and Hebrew. In Greek it is Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT, which as explained early is the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV from Mat thru Rev. In Hebrew it is the Bomberg Masoretic Text of Ben Chayiim. These are the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie the KJV word for word.
Now we can see that you are not a KJB believer. The Word of God is not textually perfect in Scrivener’s Greek edition. There are all kinds of little things which do not match up with the KJB in Scrivener's Greek, including small errors in Revelation and the diminishing of 1 John 5:7. There simply is no perfect single standard Hebrew or Greek in one edition. However there is a single perfect standard of all the Bible in the KJB.

I said: "There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%."

By this statement you just contradicted your own position because if that's so than even the KJV is not perfect since it was a translation.
I mean today (I was unclear in my former statement here). The KJB translators had a perfect method, and they got it over 100%. We don’t have the same learning or capability today.

I will speak for myself. I believe wholeheartedly that the English of the KJV perfectly conveys everything that God said in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words that he dictated to the original writers.
If the KJB perfectly conveys everything that God said, then it is God’s Word in English. It is not merely “An English rendering of what God said in Hebrew or Greek”. It is, “What God said, in English”. I can see that you are still servant to Hebrew and Greek, and not in the English only. I know that people teach doctrines based on what the Hebrew and Greek say, but that is actually an unbiblical approach, and subject to error. It is much wiser to teach English Scripture as interpreted, compared and based upon right dividing and sound use of English Scripture.

Translating God to Dios, or water to agua, or man to hombre, is not usurping anything. It's translating and there is nothing wrong with it.
It is usurping in the sense that it is going against God’s providentially appointed trend of getting His word- and sense-perfect Word which is in English, not Spanish, to the world. The usurping comes in where there is a persistence to resist the purity and long term regal destiny of the KJB.

You're whole position is built upon assumptions and speculations. You are assuming that the promises of preservation in the scriptures had an expiration date on them and that the preservation process expired with the KJV.
I said (in other words) that God would continue to preserve the KJB as His special interest. There is no expiry date there. I did not say that God would end preserving His Word.

You are speculating that the one book in Rev. 10 is the KJV yet you are building an entire premise based on this speculation.
I do believe that is another of many prophecies in Scripture of the KJB. That is only one of many passages. I do not think it to be merely speculation, because it is the doctrine of Scripture itself that it (singular) should go forth to all the world, ends of the earth, all nations, etc.

But the trend and the manifest providence of God is to go toward one language. It is the Church where Babel is reversed, and where the possibility of Babel is unperverted, i.e. that all things are possible to him that believeth.
Again, lots of verses taken in concert. It should be apparent to someone with somewhat knowledge in the KJB issue that the KJB in the whole Church is the true reversal of Babel. There’s lots of teaching here: basically, when evil men had one language, they could do anything. But the power should be in the Church to do great things for Christ before His return. Lots of verses show this, such as a portion of Isaiah 28, Hab. 2:14, Matthew 24:14, Acts 1:8, Romans 16:26, etc. etc.

And when we go to the word of God we don't find God telling His disciples to teach everybody Hebrew. We find the disciples ministering to people IN THEIR OWN TONGUE. Your position is not supported by the examples of scripture.
Actually, the point is not that God was preached to many nations by many languages, but that this idea is furthered so EVENTUALLY that all nations are taught one Word. That is why I have said the KJB is supersuccessionary. It is better than and replaced the Geneva Bible. Therefore, it is better than and replaces even the Gomez Spanish Bible (in time).

Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anyone learning English
By what other SINGLE language was the Gospel then presented to the Jews historically, whereby the outworking eventually was that the nation of Israel was turned to Jesus Christ?

Stammering lips is talking about Pentecostalism and about the foolishness of preaching. “Another tongue” is talking about the KJB and the English language.

Did Paul limit the meaning of Isaiah 28:11 to only tongues or only his own time? (That gets into a whole other area.)

why you would try to make it be something different than what the Holy Ghost through Paul already revealed it to be is beyond me.
I agree with what Paul wrote. But I know there are multiple valid interpretations of Scripture. Take the muzzel not the ox passage. Its meaning is literal. And its meaning also is don’t deny offerings to ministers. Therefore Isaiah 28:11 means Paul’s Pentecostal teaching AND it means the KJB evangelisation of the Jews.

During the Tribulation period the church is not going to be here. So the ones preaching to the Jews ...
Why wait till then to fulfil Christ’s great commission? Scripture plain prophesies that it is the GENTILES who are to begin to convert the Jews? Why would the Church have a non-Scriptural doctrine to forfeit its responsibility of preaching to the Jews?

I have a hard time believing that they Jews are going to ditch their Hebrew scriptures and ditch their Hebrew language and start doing everything in English.
Well, grow in faith. Torah beliefs, Orthodox Judaism and so forth is not Christianity. Getting Jews born again has nothing to do with Jewish religion. The Jews get our religion. And since the Bible both commands it and promises it, quit fighting the idea and get on board.

“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” (Romans 11:11).

“But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.” (Romans 10:19).

”Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.” (Romans 11:31).

And I am trying to inform you that trying to teach English to the 6912 living language groups in this world is an unrealistic option.
Right now many many people are learning English or getting READY (providentially prepared) to learn English. It is not an unrealistic vision to bring the pure Word of God to them all. We have the press, radio, tv, internet and so on already. Given time and God’s providence it will happen. But we should have faith too, because that is how God uses us as vessels in His great scheme.

one of the most complex and difficult languages in the world.
That is why God raised up English to get His high and mighty words exactly, sense-for-sense and perfectly present there.

We need people to get saved NOW
Sure, but we are in a long term endeavour. If we build up the great threshing machine for world wide Christian harvest, then it will be quick. But now it is not time to be weary in labour.

What's going to happen when the English teacher is gone and/or dead.
That’s a pitiful excuse. We are talking about millions of teachers.

You tell me which of these 2 options is more efficient and will yield the most lasting effects.
Having one Church speaking on language so fulfilling 1 Cor. 1:10... And Ephesians 4.

to preach the Gospel, not to teach English and American cuture.
That’s a side issue. Anglo-Protestant based culture is better, but we are not talking about mere civilising and colonialism, we are talking about getting all people in the world to hear the Gospel, and converting whole nations. If we believe that we can do it by God’s power, at least we will convert some, even if they are nations like PNG. I think Australia and NZ need to be changed first.

This is precisely what I am saying. Give these people the word of God in THEIR language and watch what kind of wonders God's holy words can work in the lives of people. The power of God's words are not bound to any one language.
True, but now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.

God's pure words in any language is foundation.
But they are not exactly perfectly pure in regards to the finest detail. I mean, the Gomez Spanish Bible is not the same as the pure KJB. While validly called Scripture, and a good Bible, the little problems in the Gomez I think shows that it be better for the Spanish people to learn English and have the pure English Bible. After all, the KJB does not have even one problem with one letter or punctuation mark.

How can many varying versions, or variations in the TR editions be “foundation”? Clearly, even the KJB translators had to choose the correct reading from the corpus of evidence. Then there was one. We cannot have a foundation of many. We see that there is a drawing out of many into one. That is the supersuccessionary restitution doctrine.

If the KJB is perfect (i.e. to the very jot and tittle) then no other extant Bible can be perfect. This can be shown because no exactly 100% text and translation perfect Spanish Bible exists right now.

And the simple fact that David Livingston himself translated the Bible into a foreign language is proof enough that even he disagrees with your position.
Thankfully, we are in an advanced position today, so that while David Livingston did teach English to a few natives, now there are many in Africa who know English. The KJB is for them too.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 12-06-2008 at 08:53 AM.