[bibleprotector]

Because nobody on this thread said anything about DEPENDING upon the Greek and Hebrew as a necessity to understand the KJB.

I am showing that arguing for Hebrew and Greek, especially defending why it is necessary to talk about “theopneustos” rather than plain English “inspiration” is problematic. Is there any reason why references to “theopneustos” are required for proper teaching on inspiration? Yet, I find TROs have on various occasions used this word.

What has been said is that seeking out a definition of a word in the Hebrew and the Greek is not wrong. It is a viable option.

Viable? Meaning that the English in the KJB alone is not sufficient? If it is viable then the KJB is not absolute, sole authority.

But you seem to not be able to differentiate between those who consult the Greek and Hebrew from those who use them to undermine the KJB. There IS a difference.

The problem isn’t consulting the Hebrew and Greek, the problem is that TROs are not standing for the KJB as sole final authority. If you can say it is the word of God, teach it and study it without NECESSARY reference to the original languages, then I would concede that you are not undermining the KJB. What you would have to do is agree that the full and utter truth is there in the KJB, and that you might be able to have access to all of it, without ever having to go to the original languages.

They were given in Hebrew and Greek. God said that He would preserve those pure words from generation to generation.

You have misquoted Scripture, it actually says from this generation. Anyway, the pure words are present in our KJB, and that is in line with all the promises of the Scripture that it should be made known to all nations for the obedience of faith, etc. This clearly is not limiting preservation or purity to the original languages.

Certainly, I agree that the inspiration took place in the original languages, and that the emphasis of preservation was there until the time of the Reformation, but we all know that the emphasis in the Reformation was upon translating, and that now the emphasis must be on upholding one pure standard for all the world.

And again, those divine Words have not expired as God's Words.

Are God’s words in English any less divine? I think Tyndale et al would disagree with you.

God preserved those initial Greek and Hebrew words through:

1. The tireless copying of those Greek and Hebrew words from generation to generation in multitudes of manuscripts.

Very few manuscripts were copied after the Reformation. Not one of the manuscripts or the TR or critical editions are perfect and exact. In short, there is no perfect Bible matching the Autographs which is extant in the original languages today. (This is besides all the controversy over the meanings of words and grammar in the original languages!)

2. The accurate translating of those Greek and Hebrew words into other languages. These translations (most especially the KJV) provides for us a resource by which we can IDENTIFY the pure words of God and distinguish them from the corrupt.

The identifying of God’s pure words is not by using the KJB to yet find them in the original languages. That is completely backward. God isn’t bothered with the originals today. If we are trying to discover or defend the original languages, we are in the shaky ground which leads to the untenable assertions of TROism. Namely, that God’s Word actually isn’t fully and utterly in the King James Bible alone, but somehow reference must be made to the original languages, and attempts to reconstruct and defend the original words behind the KJB must be maintained. Why? THE KJB WILL NOT FALL DOWN IF WE NEGLECT THE HEBREW AND GREEK! Why? God is upholding His Word, and it is fully and utterly gathered and passed into the English.

When God gave us the KJB, he gave us an inerrant translation of those pure words (that were initially given in Hebrew and Greek) into English.

This is true, but no single source exists in the original languages that is 100% perfect on its own. Moreover, if the words as were gathered and discerned by the KJB men from the original languages and their utilising of many witnesses were “pure”, would not this mean that 100% purity is also there in English? In short, the KJB MUST BE 100% PURE, and this means that whatever was pure in the originals is neither here nor there, for the English is pure.

So how do we distinguish what Greek words are the words that God gave?

We don’t. The 1611 men did that, and what we do is receive the Word in our tongue: English.

You identify them with the KJB since it IS an "independent variety of the Received Texts". This is exactly what Scrivener did when he produced his edition of the Textus Receptus in 1894.

The KJB is, but Scrivener’s work is not final nor perfect. You will notice that 1 John 5:7 stands as pure Scripture in the KJB. You will see that Scrivener’s Greek undermines 1 John 5:7. Also, there are other problems with Scrivener’s artificial construction. What is worse is that if you go to it, you are already assuming that the KJB is not fit to stand as the pure Word of God alone upon its own authority. You are deferring to some other form which does not even agree exactly with the KJB.

Notice that even TBS states, “closely underlies”. I can tell you that it is not pure and perfect, because it is not agreeing with the KJB. The reality is that the only kind of acceptable agreement ultimately is that people look at the English itself. There is no true benefit that we would gain as far as doctrine or interpretation by having Scrivener’s Greek. You see, English is the standard.

As far as the Hebrew is concerned scribes have painstakingly copied every word from generation to generation.

The universal priesthood of believers, as is now manifest through the Protestant line, is far superior to this rabbinical line which had its place prior to the Reformation.

Ask any orthodox Rabbi in a synogogue today about the Hebrew scriptures that they have today and they will tell you that what they have is an exact copy of the words of Moses and the Prophets.

Ask a KJBO today, and he will tell you that the KJB is 100% perfect. Unlike the variations in the Hebrew scrolls, of which none is 100% perfect today! Moreover, being a Christian, I am inclined to believe people of my religion (e.g. Baptists) rather than people of another religion!

I believe them because it matches God's promise that His words (which concerning the OT were given in Hebrew) would be preserved in every generation.

No passage of Scripture reads “in every generation”. I say this because Melchisedec and Abraham did not have the Scripture. In fact, it is we who have an exact text of the Scripture in one form. I am certain that at the Reformation there was no flawless Hebrew copies. The only way we actually know what God’s words are is by trusting and believing the KJB. If the KJB, there is no need to go to the Hebrew today and figure out what Hebrew words the KJB is representing. That is only confusion.

God's inspired words in Hebrew and Greek are here today because God promised they would be.

I say that they are not here today in one perfect form accessible to the whole world. And yet the KJB is. There is not one verse of Scripture which specifically promises the preservation to the original languages.

Notice that the following verses specifically require the exact Scriptures in non-original languages:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Ro 10:19 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.

Re 14:6 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,

To this can be added Matthew 28:19, 20 and Romans 16:26 etc.

And English-speakers have these same words infallibly preserved in English in the KJB.

This means that you do not hold to the perfection of the KJB as an entity, but merely as a derived form, and actually place emphasis upon continuing original language “masters” rather than translation “puppets”.

What you are saying is that the full authority of Scripture cannot be invested into a translation. You are saying that a translation cannot become the new and final form. And what you really are saying is that the KJB can never become the only Bible which we would take alone to believe. That is, you are not King James Bible only, because you deny that the KJB is God’s providentially appointed form of His Word which has all authority and all power. In other words, preservation in English is merely a subset of God’s preservation in the originals.

AND YET, THERE IS A PERFECT TEXT AND TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH, AND NO PERFECT TEXT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY OF THE ORIGINALS! How strange it must be that God has provided His preserved Word in a TRANSLATION!

there are no conflicts or differences between those texts and the KJB

I know there are no conflicts, because the KJB gives in English exactly what was inspired, and that the TR and the MT were the conduits by which the exact truth came to be in English.

After all, the KJV translators weren't producing words out of thin air.

Exactly, and why would we reject what they have produced by making reference to the general mass of TR Greek renderings and MT Hebrew renderings, when they produced a final form? In other words, why reject that God’s providential preservation passed over into the English by keeping a superstitious deference to “the originals”, when we have God’s Word entire and intact with us in English?

The person who considers the Greek and Hebrew in their studies are acknowledging their weakness in comprehending "the unsearchable riches of Christ" in the Word of God.

It is plain that such a person will ever be seeking, for that the Scripture plainly said to come and drink, not to be ever seeking. The weakness in comprehending is exactly because there is no firmness in grasping the final, settled and certain words of the KJB. If you link back to the originals, there will be some confusion.

So out of a sincere desire to learn they are availing themselves of whatever they can so as to help them.

The Spirit of God is powerful enough to help the sincere seeker, and all the more as a person trusts that God have given His Word, plainly, truly and rightly presently with us in the KJB. The Spirit did not say anything about emphasising the originals.

What we have in the English IS enough.

That is true. But the KJB is not only sufficient. It is perfect. If was merely sufficient, God would lead us to the correctness of the originals. But God is leading people to the correctness of the KJB. The use of the originals is something which has fallen away.

Why else do you think God raised up "Pastors and teachers"?

To bring five words of understanding from the KJB rather than ten thousand words from the originals!

Since the "English is enough" perhaps God wasted His time raising up "Pastors and teachers" who can help us to understand the scriptures better.

I do not know which pastors and teachers you mean, but the right teaching is to rely upon the Scripture as given. The KJB is it. Better understanding comes from studying it, not the original languages.

But I also allow that the Words of God that He initially gave and providentially preserved HIMSELF is also a viable option for the sincere Bible student.

The KJB has the words which God initially gave and preserved Himself, despite that the KJB was not produced by inspiration 1604-1611, and despite the fact that the KJB is in English.

* Please produce the perfect exact text in one form in Hebrew and in Greek, or show how it is possible today to know every last word in Hebrew and Greek with nothing added or taken away.

* Please explain why 100% of the sense could not be fully in English to the point where the English alone preserves 100% of what was communicated in the originals.

* Please state why the English is not sufficient to stand alone without any necessary reference to the original languages today.