"Study to divide the word of truth?" That's not the ultimate purpose of studying the word. The purpose is to do it. This rhymes with all the related points of scripture, including the OT, that culminates into the final conclusion of Ecclessiastics: Fear God and keep his commandments. Studying is not the purpose of study nor is it an end to itself.

edit: an example of one of these "points" is Joshua 22:5.

As all good "Humanists" eventually you run to your "Final Authorities" = MEN, and their opinions, and to your ultimate "FINAL AUTHORITY" your own worthless opinions. I've said it before and I'll say it again - You refuse to receive instruction and have the "gall" to try to "correct" us while all the while you have so little spiritual discernment or understanding.

Keep on relying on your "intellect" and see how far it will get you with God - I'm sure He is impressed!

Proverbs 29:20 Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

This applies "double" to some women - and if the shoe fits wear it! :D

You are right, I did blur the two meanings together, because both seemed right and I didn't get it sorted out, and still haven't completely. I rather think it means both.

But accepting that it is about the written Word, I've answered that anyway - you are reducing God's word, which means His communication, message, revelation, truth, to the literal language code itself.

George, I don't want to fight with you. You are relying on YOUR intellect and YOUR opinions and don't seem to know it. It is just another superstitious misreading of God's word to say that we are not to regard the works of men who are following God and are in positions of God-given authority. If that were the case then nobody should listen to you either. You misapply "humanist" and you misapply "sophist" and you make a person an offender based on your own hidebound misreading of God's word.

Scripture is ALWAYS the final authority. But YOUR reading of it or Matthew Henry's or mine is ALWAYS a question. Your quoting scripture right and left does not convey any more than your own opinion about the scripture.

And with this lovely piece of "sophistry" you have just proven my point: You refuse to receive instruction! How can my "quoting scripture right and left" be conveying just my own opinion? Do you have a sound mind? The whole purpose of quoting scripture is to avoid my giving you my own opinion! The whole purpose is for your edification - But you refuse to receive instruction!

The foregoing little "gem" is a perfect example of not only "sophistry", but it is also a prime example of the results of "the Socratic Method" - always "QUESTIONING EVERYTHING" -never able to come to a final conclusion (I think your term = "hidebound")

2 Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Who made Matthew Henry an "authority" over me or you? From the inception of the church of God up to the present day - the churches (all of them eventually) have always gone into "apostasy" and become "reprobate" by following "men who are following God and are in positions of God-given authority", rather than following the Holy scriptures of truth.

And finally - and I mean "FINALLY"! Your "cheap shot" at me (why me?) in your post #6, this same subject: (which I initially let pass - considering the source) is indicative of a woman who has been "OUT OF ORDER" for some time and who obviously cannot display even the simplest of graces (respect and consideration) for the fact that I am an elder in a church and have been happily married for 47 years, and have successfully raised 7 children in the fear and admonition of the Lord).

Who are you, that every time an opportunity arises, you show disrespect towards me, but on the other hand you hold all of these dead men in high regard (as "Authorities"). Are they any better than me? :confused:

For what purpose do you "denigrate" a man (me), who is trying to follow God according to the Holy Scriptures? Are you trying to "edify" or are you trying to tear down? Are you trying to set up yourself as an "authority" as opposed to me? I am finished (for the second time) trying to deal with you. You are incorrigible. You've got a "heart problem" that cannot be "fixed" unless you work on it. :(

Here are some more Scriptures (right and left) for your correction and edification - although they are addressed to men, they apply to women to: :rolleyes:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 16:22 Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.

Proverbs 15:31 The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise.
32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Proverbs 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured.

Proverbs 5:12 And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof;

Psalms 50:17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee.

Jeremiah 17:23 But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction.

Jeremiah 32:33 And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction.

Aloha, nui loa,

George

Uh, just what do you think God's message is made of, if not words!?

Your "view" of God's word is totally unscriptural. The very words are indeed what matter. And of course the "communication" matters -- it's what we get from the words. If you say the words don't matter but the "message" does, you are putting the cart before the horse.

Jeremiah 36:17-18 And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth? Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.

Just how does one divine the "message" without the words?

Joh 6:63
(63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Oh good grief. I didn't say we do WITHOUT the words, Diligent, just that it's the MEANING of the words, the MESSAGE of the words, the REVELATION, the TRUTH that matters. It's simply a FACT that different English words in different times convey different shades of the truth and sometimes entirely different meanings, a fact so many here seem unwilling to recognize. The simple passage of time changes the meaning of words and thus changes the meaning of GOD's word. It can't be helped. The words, the individual words, DO matter, they matter a GREAT deal, they have to be ACCURATE, they have to convey what God meant to be conveyed, and if the original English words have changed their meanings they HAVE to be updated so that we CAN have the true individual words that convey the true meaning God intended.

I understand that you are passionately committed to holding onto the inspired status of the King James Bible and are deathly afraid that some "humanist" like myself and others here might shake people's confidence in it as God perfect word. The intention is laudable but you just end up painting yourselves into a corner, and in fact put yourselves in the position of obstructing the availability of God's word. We need a new updated King James. We need it done by the right people appointed by the right churches. We aren't going to get it because the churches are blinded by the new versions, because few recognize the importance of the problem, and last but not least because of the hidebound superstitiousness of the KJB-only crowd who impute divine status to Elizabethan English. Of course God is in charge of language, but He's also in charge of His people and knows how to guide the right men to keep His word updated without losing anything essential in the old language. Satan has a vested interest in keeping the King James unavailable to the majority and this is one way he can do it.

I'm not a humanist, but there's the opposite side of this spectrum: the Word has become the idol; the Word is worshipped instead of the creator who spoke it. That's why they are so bound to this kind of flakiness.

Actually, I don't want a new translation; I'm already used to the old KJV.

George you've been denouncing me from early on, from when I dared to believe God's word says something different about the head covering than you think it says. I'm out of order only because I'm a woman you happen to disagree with. You don't merely disagree, though, you have to denounce me personally, over and over and over. If I disagree with what you say and agree with what Matthew Henry says, I quote him and not you. I'm mostly trying to avoid you and not get run over by you, as opposed to denigrating you, George. If you were an elder in my own church I guess I'd have to shut up or leave the church.

I DO have a question whether I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut in company with an elder of another church who doesn't have authority over me and with whom I disagree. It doesn't make me happy. I don't like being in this position. I don't want to question your authority. I recognize you as a man of God of exemplary Christian life who is sincerely applying His word as you sincerely understand it.

But I do disagree with you, and I don't know how I am to handle that, especially when you go around denouncing me as a sophist. I'm not a humanist, I'm not a sophist, I'm right about the head covering and I'm right about the need for the Bible to be updated. Accepting your "instruction" would be nothing other than being forced to agree with you. I don't know what else I'm supposed to be "instructed" about.

I'll leave it to God to judge between the two of us.

I'm not thinking about what individuals need, though, MDOC, but what the church needs -- new converts in particular. I really think we need an updated KJB -- CAREFULLY updated, to preserve MOST (99.999%) of the old language, and change only what is essential to avoid misreadings and making modern people stumble over unfamiliar terms.

Connie, that scripture about women keeping silence is only supposed to apply to married wives to their husbands. No such restriction as to silence is supposed to be imposed on women in any other way, except with respect to church order. Another factor is that women in Paul's time were relatively unlearned as to matters of the law, mostly because men were taught the law and not women in those days.

OK, no problem. I do have to be open to the possibility that the younger generation can and will ferret out the truth much as I've done. And the Holy Ghost will lead into all truth.

Again showing it's the words that matter...

Not just words, man. The spirit and the power of it by the Holy Ghost.

Which come through the words! What is being ignored here is that the very words are the vessels for the "meaning, message," etc etc that is said to matter more than the words. It is sheer nonsense to say that the words are less important than the "message" or the "meaning." The words are how God chose to convey the message. In fact, we must care for the words, because the message is not always clear. We must have the exact words God used to give the meaning if we are to tell what the meaning is with surety. It is the words God promised to preserve. It is the words that we can count on to learn the meanings even when the translators did not understand the "message" they carried.

I agree new converts can cope with the King James as we do, MDOC, but I don't think they'll accept it under today's circumstances (and I'm thinking of TRUE converts, TRUE believers. If we all had spiritual perfection we wouldn't have any disagreements about anything).

I understand what you are saying about women's position, too, but I do take it very seriously as a matter of God's creation order and not just a matter of education. I've learned as much as I have learned over the years about the things of God mostly in self-defense because so many churches are misleading us in these last days. I had to get out of a liberal church, then a charismatic church, and then a church that teaches sound Biblical doctrine but with a worldly and intellectual tone rather than being Spirit-led (I have enough discernment to get free of that, but according to George I'm a humanist nonetheless).

Yes, I got what you quoted about it's not being the words but the spirit and life of the words.

I do believe that God put men over women but I don't believe that I'm to answer to all men, only proper authorities. I accept Paul as God-inspired so what he says doesn't just apply to his own culture but to all of us. I accept that I'm answerable to proper church authorities, but George hasn't been defined as an elder in the Church of AV1611 Forums. (And don't get me wrong, I think George and his wife Renee are admirable people and admirable Christians. I even like them as people -- in spite of his dogging my case). I accept that I'm not to teach men, no matter how much I know, but I don't see that a forum like this puts me in the position of teacher since anyone can accept or reject what I say. I'm also working on starting a blog of my own, which I'm hoping doesn't put me in that role either, and I don't see why it should. So as you can see, I do have questions about all this. I'm not sure how it's to be worked out in today's world.

It isn't being ignored, Diligent. I already answered it in post #48. The words ARE important, we DO need to take great care for them, and that is why we have to have the Bible updated from time to time, because over time they change their meaning and lose the ability to convey the message to new generations.

I put it this way in #48:

I just don't believe some of these folks are amenable to God's words. If some struggle with Elizabethan English, it is because they are lazy, or need a heart check. The call for an updated translation is nonsense. Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set!
I do not believe in Heavenly perfection of the King James Bible, but believe it is the closest we will ever have this side of Heaven. To say the word is worshiped over The Word is not to understand His words. There is only One that is perfect that deserves all praise and worship. Why did He magnify His word? For to worship Him!

What don't folks understand about:

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mat 4:4

"I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." Job 23:12

"for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" Psalm 138:2

I'll continue in my flakiness!

What of the words that some would trifle with?
The words make up the message. It is the words that are inspired.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."Mat 24:35

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." Is 59:21

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Mat 5:18

The King James Bible as is is an accurate faithful translation that will never be surpassed.

You can't know the Creator without His written Word.

Connie, we don't NEED an update of the KJV - we have the tools to study the KJV that we already have. It just means some work - that's why we need to be diligent in studying it out.

I'm not disputing that now, but how then did Abraham know the Creator if he didn't have the written Word? He did it by faith.

Faith means believing what God said. Today He speaks to us through His Word. If anyone thinks He is appearing to them and speaking audibly to them, they are deceived.

First, there is no difference between now and then with respect to this matter: If it is wrong to update the spellings of words in the KJV now, then it always has been, which means we must all go back to reading the 1611 with euen and voyces. There is no rational, logical, nor theological reason to claim that it was ok to update voyces to voices back in the 1700s but now it is a corruption to update sith to since.

Secondly, sith and since are not two different words. Their meanings are the same, and they are in fact spelling variants. And even if sith had some meaning other than since, in the one passage of the KJV that uses sith (Ezek 35:6) it is clearly used in the sense of since.

I understand being upset with people changing all the thee's and ye's to just be you, and making other unnecessary changes. If you thought I was in favor of such, you were mistaken. But is sith to since the same as thee to you? No. Because sith and since mean the same thing. It would be like changing to doughnut to donut.

You ultra wacko way out there KJVOs always make that stupid claim but refuse to back it up. If they are different words, then explain the difference in meaning genius. You can't because it doesn't exist. Any dictionary you look at is going to say something like "Middle English; see diverse" and "adv. Archaic Thoroughly."

They are the exact same word and the meanings are exactly the same. The only difference is that in Elizabethan English the silent e at the end was not needed to preserve the pure s sound from degrading into a z. They pronounced divers as diverse. But we today need the silent e at the end to preserve that pure s sound, because without it we pronounce divers as diverz. Its just a spelling difference. They are the same word. And if you knew anything about Elizabethan pronunciation you would know what I am talking about with the silent e.

And on the other, gradually over time a o was added after the h in "throughly" changing the spelling. Regular KJVOs (like me) are sick of you wacko lunatics making words like this out to be separate words and trying to claim that they have different meanings that only you can tell us because you are the gnostics who received this secret tradition from the 32 aeons. Well, initiate us then, genius--what's the difference between “throughly” and “thoroughly”? Silence, then crickets.


Because every lunatic claims to have the pure Cambridge edition and each and every one of them spells some word different from the other. Some have too many sith's and some too many since's. Some hocked and some houghed.

I didn't say the original autographs only were inspired. I am a KJVO, but not a lunatic one like you. You are the one who says only the original KJV autographs were inspired and only the non-existent pure Cambridge text.

Wow. All these years I have been believing and cherishing my Bible, when I should have been coping with it!

Now I am sure you're going to say that you didn't actually mean we "cope" with our Bible...

It is true that the ultimate purpose of studying is to do the word, but you are ignoring the very verse you are writing about. Why go all the way back to Ecclesiastes when you can look at this verse itself 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Study to do what? Show thyself approved. Approved in what way? Being a workman that has no need of being ashamed? Why not? Because he rightly divides the word of God. So, in this verse, rightly dividing the word is the purpose of the studying, which (BTW) makes your argument that study is a wrong translation very funny. First, study still has both senses today (1) be diligent and (2) read, compare, whatever, so it is silly to say that study is wrong. Secondly, because it still contains both senses it is preferable to "be diligent" because "be diligent" is just the translational suggestion of those who try and claim that study in the sense of reading is unnecessary. Third, Paul gave a similar instruction to timothy in the first letter, 1 Tim 4:13 "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." These are basically parallel passages, Paul's exhortation to Timothy to study to show himself approved as one who rightly divides the word and his exhortation to have him "give attendance" to reading, etc. these are the same thing.

Why do people, when presented with Matthew's position, tend to make up entirely false positions and attribute them to him?

You have clearly not researched Matthew's position well -- as I understand his position, he believes that even if we had access to the original penned KJV transcripts that they would not be useful in determining the purest presentation of the KJV.

I can fully understand disagreeing with Matthew that there exists a completely perfect presentation of the KJV, but to call him a lunatic for believing literally that no jot or tittle will pass speaks volumes of his accusers. That kind of faith is not lunacy.

Come off it. In the beginning I'm sure you did "cope" with it, especially if you were young. This is analogous to Heb 4:13 ("with whom we have to do").

These are stepping stones to being diligent. Then you do the word. Get it? You don't just study and study, and then more study. It's not enough to merely divide up the word. Read, if you have it, the note in the aforementioned verse in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.
I didn't say it was wrong. I said is not an accurate translation. "Study" is right as an inclusive part of diligence. That's why diligence is a superlative for "Study".

What is lunacy is saying that spelling variations in English amount to jots and tittles passing when the exact same meaning is preserved and depends on the exact same jots and tittles in Hebrew and Greek (which is where jots and tittles are). And furthermore what is lunacy is allowing for an updating of euen to even and voyces to vioces, and euen of diuers to divers but not by any means of divers to diverse or sith to since! And I never said there is no perfect presentation of the KJV. What I am saying is that spelling variations that do not effect the meaning are not imperfections. If someone were to change "thee" to "you" in Luke 22:32, that would be an imperfection. But what if someone changed "throughly" to "thoroughly" in Mat 3:12 that is not a problem nor imperfection at all. In fact, one KJV I use all the time on my PC says "thoroughly" there, but another that I use on my Pocket PC says "throughly" and one little paperback KJV (full Bible) that I carry to church a lot says "thoroughly" and yet another one, a New Testament only KJV with the Spanish Reina-Valera in parallel says "throughly." That doesn't bother me at all, because I know that "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the same thing. What does bother me, and greatly so, is people claiming that they mean different things, just so they can overthrow the faith of those who didn't buy their KJV from them (or who didn't print out their KJV from their website and bind it together themselves).

I wouldn't say that you should just study and study and never do the word. But I would say that the context of the passage in question is more about a teacher studying to be approved to God as a teacher. Hence the phrase "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed" and specifically "rightly dividing the word of truth." So, you are right that you don't just study to study. But you are stepping away from the context of the passage in question a bit too far I think. At the same time, I grant you that "be diligent" (along the same lines as the KJV renders the same base word in 2 Tim 4:9 and Titus 3:12) or even "labor" (as the KJV renders in Heb 4:11) would not be wrong translations. However, I think "study" fits the context very good here, even moreso than "be diligent." "Be diligent" is weak in connotation although the denotation is ok. It sounds too much like a state of mind rather than an actual effort. So, really, "be diligent" is the least favorable translation. "Labor" certainly beats it by far! Yet, study, being that is has the double sense, seems more to fit the context.

The only thing I need to "come off" of, if I am to see this the way you do, is my reading comprehension. Apparently you do not understand the words being used here. Her claim was that "we" all "cope" with the Bible:

And to your point: when I was healed of being NIV+ there was surprisingly little "coping" with the language of the KJV. Once one lets go of one's prejudice, it's not "coping" with the language that's a problem!

PS: "Study to show thyself approved" cannot really be misapplied like "labor to show thyself approved" could because people would certainly try and apply the labor to everything but study, whereas the passage clearly is mostly about "rightly dividing the word" and hence about study, so study is the best translation.

Perhaps he doesn't mean personal coping so much as coping with the blank stares of others when he reads a passage to them.

Perhaps coping isn't the best word to use, but think about this passage. 1st Thessalonians 4:15 "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." I don't have to cope with the passage, since I understand it and I beleive it, and I love it. But I do have to cope with heretics misusing the archaic language, specifically the word prevent, to make this passage mean something other than it means. This passage, properly understood, kills the secret-silent-rapture theory by showing that we will not by any means PRECEDE (prevent here means precede) the dead saints, that is, we will not be raptured UNTIL the dead saints are RAISED FROM THE DEAD. So, the rapture theory common among oh so many today is blasted to smitherines. But I have to "cope" with all the heretics running around making this mean "we will not stop the dead saints from raising" when it really means "we will not precede the dead saints" (that is, "we will not be raptured until they are raised and raptured with us"). There probably would be no ridiculous pre-resurrection rapture theory today if someone would have updated this archaic language a century ago! But I'll bet at least 80% of you guys on here beleive that the rapture will take place before the resurrection and some of you are going to jump me and say "nu uh! the word prevent here does mean 'stop' and all it means is 'we cannot stop the saints from being raised.' Prevent doesn't mean precede and it doesn't mean we will not be raptured before the resurrection." Such is a lot of times the impetus behind many people being KJVOs--they simply want to keep the archaic language to prop up some certain heresy. Not everyone is such, as I am not, but many MANY are. Now, Job says in Job 3:12 "Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?" He doesn't mean "why did the knees stop me?" because clearly he is lamenting that they DIDN'T stop him. He is wishing he had died in infancy, but he didn't, because the knees preceded him!

I'm becoming unsure whether you can rightly divide ordinary English, George. I said nothing about questioning anything, I meant that different people mean different things by their use of scripture so we always have a question about how they are using it and whose reading is the correct one. That's simply a fact, a simple fact, and for you to call it the Socratic Method and sophistry is, truly, ridiculous.

I DO come to a final conclusion, I did not imply anything else. I KNOW what I think, and in this case I think you are being a reviler and an accuser without cause, a watcher for iniquity, and that in that long list of scripture verses about people refusing reproof and instruction you are misusing God's word to express your own personal opinion of me as if it were God's.

The above post refers to this post:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...9&postcount=45

Connie, it's true that God put husbands over their wives, but not if they're unmarried. This distinction is consistent in scriptures. The only authority you're answerable to are those in your church, the one where God placed you, and not any outside the church. The pastor there is responsible for ecclessiastical order there. I don't have any authority over you simply because I'm a male, though I understand the tendency you alluded to of women putting themselves under men simply because of gender. It's not biblical. But I won't get into it anymore.

But you know, women do have some authority (except in domestic situations): Phebe (or, Phoebe) in Romans 16:1 was a deaconess. Did you know that? (But don't take that to mean I support Hillary. I hope she fails miserably. Absolute foolishness!)

How it works in today's world is simply a matriachical society... they have it both backwards and upside down. The world's methods are not to be followed, and this is scripturally consistent, too.

As Brandon points out, whatever Sophro is accusing me of is quite outside what I believe and have written.

I believe that the King James Bible itself was not made by inspiration, but that it is the inspired Word.

I believe that we have access to a purified form of the King James Bible, where all the typographical errors, spelling variations and so on have been made right.

I believe that none of the jots and tittles of Scripture have failed in English, and that “jot” and “tittle” are English words (just look up the Oxford English Dictionary) applying to the English Bible.

This is a gross misrepresentation. Of course the presentation has been altered historically, so that it is pure now. Just not every time it says "divers" should it be made "diverse", etc., etc., because they always were two different words. The 1611 Edition was actually meaning what we can see today. There are reasons for why the 1611 seemed to have got it wrong, such as that the printers made a mistake, or that both spellings were acceptable for the word/s where separate spellings are used and known today. (Used and known by at least a few today.)

There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.

If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.

2Sa 24:14
(14) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

1Ch 21:13
(13) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.

Notice anything different about this set of refs? "Much learning doth make thee mad," Ruckman would say. (I'm not a Ruckmanite.)

George, I'm going to apologize for my last post to you. I felt bad about it after I wrote it and then prayed about it and saw my error. I believe you have been dealing with me unfairly, but that is not an excuse for me to attack you back. I'm truly sorry.