Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2008, 08:01 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit
I don't understand what the Niagara document has to do with this discussion.... I don't know why those verses do not apply to this discussion? ... Using extra-biblical evidences (i.e., Strong's numbers or Greek lexicons) leaves you vulnerable.
The Niagara document and the refutation of its weaknesses was all "extra-biblical evidences". And by your standards such issues should not be discussed, and false assertions should not be refuted, and your eyes should not have been opened. What applies for discussions about Niagara documents is equivalent to what you believe is true for false Greek and Hebrew assertions. (They should not be refuted, the modern version deceivers should simply have the field to themselves to deceive the unwary.)

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

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

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


Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-02-2008 at 08:14 PM.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
Old 06-02-2008, 11:33 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

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".

Last edited by bibleprotector; 06-02-2008 at 11:41 PM.
Old 06-03-2008, 12:47 AM
PB1789's Avatar
PB1789 PB1789 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alaska, USA
Posts: 172

Originally Posted by kjvisit View Post
Oops! Not Tim but PB.
My comments were directed to PB.
PB defended the use of the Greek and Hebrew.
Another reason I dislike forums.
Kjvisit:--- If you don't like "Forums" then why-oh-why are you logged into a Forum..? This is a place to discuss things and possibly help folks out that have questions. Just as Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors of ice cream, we as humans will have different opinions about things.

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

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

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

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

To: Diligent and Brother Tim:---Gents I read your posts above in reply to mine. I'm not a new believer, or a "babe-in-the woods". Maybe, since I lived for over 4 decades in Southern California I've met/talked/interacted/passed out tracts/been threatened by cultists and skeptics and fruitcakes....I've got a different opinion..? I'm not trying to get a "New" revision- 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.
Old 06-03-2008, 12:58 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

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

Luther would quote from the Hebrew and Greek Texts
In this restoration, the "Luthers" would quote from one English Text, i.e. "Text" single not "Texts" plural.
Old 06-03-2008, 06:35 AM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864

PB, how would you use the Greek to fill out the understanding of "love" in John 21? (referring to your earlier post)
Old 06-03-2008, 06:50 AM
Debau's Avatar
Debau Debau is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 177

Originally Posted by kjvisit View Post
PB1789: =. Surely, you do not consider the Greek and Hebrew MSS to be the Word of God....
Someone at some time, in their common language, did consider these MSS the word of God.
Old 06-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Originally Posted by kjvisit
I offered biblical support for my position. Where is yours? It is wanting....
Tim's quotation of 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 was sufficient.

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

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

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

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

Old 06-03-2008, 04:33 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default RE: Referring to the "original languages" ("The Greek"?)

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

In regards to PB1789's comments
"there are real benefits to looking up the meanings of the words in the original languages."
Instead of running off to Strong's "reference number" - you could have "searched the scriptures" and you would have easily found what "kind" of "killing" is prohibited in the 10 Commandments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last edited by George; 06-03-2008 at 04:48 PM.
Old 06-04-2008, 05:50 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

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

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

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

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


Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-04-2008 at 06:15 AM.
Old 06-04-2008, 06:26 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit
.. I have nothing more to say..
Tis fine by me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-04-2008 at 06:39 AM.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

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

Software for Believing Bible Study

Contact Us AV1611.Com