I am interested in knowing what the strict KJVOnly thinks about using the Greek, Hebrew and scholars.

There are articles on av1611.com that are written by scholars. There are also discussion on the Greek and Hebrew.

Diligent, please do not view this as a personal affront, but why do you write the following if you are willing to use the original biblical languages and scholarly articles? This seems inconsistent.

But it is apparant that there are people who have nothing better to do than to actively seek an undermining of peoples' faith in the Bible and try to build up secondary authorities (ie, the elusive "The Greek" or other scholars). I have already banned some of the most egregious offenders, but I am wondering if a more stringent policy is warranted.

[bibleprotector]

Bible Scholars are good. Bible Hebrew was good. Bible Greek was good.

"Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?" (Isaiah 33:18).

Most people are looking at the wrong scholarship today.

As for the Bible original languages, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11). One other language is set up by God. "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16). What is that book? Where is the perfect Word of God extant today?

And again, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." (Prov. 30:4, 5).

The pure Word of God reveals God's true name, JEHOVAH. It is the Bible that has every word pure. It is the King James Bible.

[Diligent]

Any use of "the Greek" and "the Hebrew" (I put them in quotes because you have not identified which Hebrew and Greek) should only be in support of the received text of the Bible -- which is wholly and completely available in the King James Bible.

When I was new to this subject, I wanted to read what people who were learned in the original languages had to say about it, and this is why I think it is at least somewhat useful to offer this support on the website. I eventually matured to the point where I understand that it is not so important, because I have accepted by the logic of faith that the King James Bible lacks nothing that the originals carried -- especially authority.

Now, to a more important issue: if you find any article on this web site that uses the Greek or Hebrew to "correct" the KJV, please do point it out to me. Every time you have pointed to the "originals" you have done so to undermine the KJV -- that is quite a bit different from the articles on this web site, which point to the "originals" in vindication of the KJV and against the Criticial Texts.

I hope that clears it up.

Any use of "the Greek" and "the Hebrew" (I put them in quotes because you have not identified which Hebrew and Greek) should only be in support of the received text of the Bible -- which is wholly and completely available in the King James Bible.

I have the TR, MT, BHS, NA26.

"should only be in support of the received text" That is ludicrous. Of course, I understand why you must say this, but that nullifies any real discussion of the Greek and Hebrew. There are plenty of places in the KJV that have no Greek or Hebrew behind them. God forbid....God speed. just to name a couple.

[bibleprotector]

Since the King James Bible is first an independent variety of the Received Text, it is valid as the authority on textual judgment. And second, since it is also a completely accurate sense for sense translation, the sense of the original must have been "God forbid" and "God speed", despite claims of unbelievers to the contrary. In other words, it matters not what men say the "originals" had, we have the providentially supplied Word that comes by direct link from the inspiration of the autographs all the way by unbroken lineage to the present. Our King James Bible shows us that Paul wrote "God forbid" (not of course in English).

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Many ludicrous and nonsensical notions are put forward to attempt to correct the pure Bible from 'the Greek' or 'the Hebrew' or arcane sources such as cognate languages. John Hinton has a whole series of articles exposing this nonsense with sound scholarship. To do so, obviously, he references the Hebrew or the Greek, and John has strong language background.

The mistakes are often so strange that often a non-scholar can easily research and refute the modern version errors, where they have attempted to 'correct' the historic Bible in translation (this discussion is much more about translation than text). An example. Skeptics and anti-missionaries and islamists and others understandably all use the modern version translation error of Jeremiah 8:8 in order to attack the Bible (the 'liar's paradox'). A little research and discussion and you can lay out truth from falsehood. The article or post you write will, by necessity and to teach and share, mention or analyze 'the Hebrew' in some depth. (Although a significant part will be simply aspects like lexicon cross-reference within Jeremiah and contextual understanding within the chapter.)

If a King James Bible believer never mucks around in that world, they will still be 100% sound, reading the pure and perfect word of God. There is absolutely no requirement for a Bible believer to know these issues. And if some of us take the time and effort to demolish strongholds, we will use the tools needed on the proper battleground. Where the errors are made by the Bible correctors, we will use our skills and also a sound mind by the grace of God to correct the errors and help share the pure and perfect word of God. And one benefit to us may be that we learn more about the word of God as we study scripture with scripture.

Shalom,
Steven

SCHOLAROLATRY


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns/fbns181.html

Learning is important, and I do not despise any effort a man can make to learn the Word of God more perfectly. Get all the degrees you can if your goal is the mastery of the Holy Bible. I refuse, though, to respect a man who is puffed up with his own conceit. I am not against seminary training in principle, but it is a fact that the bulk of seminary education today is the philosophical study of fallible man which results in uncertainty and foolish questionings instead of the practical study of God's infallible Word which results in confidence in the Bible, holiness of life, and zeal for the truth.

I see two problems with the broad use of credentialed titles among preachers. First, too often the title is meaningless. What sense is it to have Dr. before your name if you can't even write a proper paragraph in the king's English? Second, too often the title is a matter of pride. The late Evangelist Lester Roloff said it well when someone wanted to bestow upon him an honorary degree. He commented, ãIt would be like tying a pretty ribbon on a hog's tail.ä Brethren, if we will be honest, all of us are mere hog's tails. God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; let's not act pretentious, not with our honorary degrees, nor with our earned degrees.

The wisdom commended by God is a practical wisdom, not a theoretical one. The late J. Vernon McGee, who made it his life's aim to take the Word of God and explain it and apply it, said the Bible had to get down to ãwhere the rubber meets the road.ä Sadly, Dr. McGee compromised in some matters, but I like his saying. Godly wisdom is a skill in understanding and applying the truth of God's Word to the needs of life and the work of God.

WAS JESUS CHRIST A SCHOLAR?

The Lord Jesus Christ did not submit Himself to the popular religious schools of His day, and He spoke in such a way that the common man could understand Him. His proud detractors stumbled at this Wisdom. They exclaimed, ãHow knoweth this man letters, having never learned?ä (Jn. 7:15). Jesus Christ was not a scholar.

WERE THE APOSTLES SCHOLARS?

For the most part the Apostles were common men who were called by Jesus Christ to write the last chapters of the Bible and to establish the first churches. The Lord Jesus put these men through an intensive course in knowledge and wisdom, but it was not in a classroom; it was not theoretical. It was not ã\ivory tower or arm chair theology. He taught them a practical, spiritual wisdom. Jesus Christ did not establish a seminary; He established a church. He did not grant degrees; He taught them how to do the work of God in this wicked, Hell-bound world. The Apostle's proud detractors did not recognize nor understand the wisdom God had given them. In their enemiesâ estimation, they were unlearned and ignorant men (Acts 4:13). The Pharisees were consumed with scholarolatry. My friends, I contend that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were some of the wisest men who have ever walked this earth. They were wiser even than the mighty prophets of Old, because they had greater Revelation. They were common men, but God gave them eternal wisdom. They were not scholars, though.

WERE THE PASTORS OF THE EARLY CHURCHES SCHOLARS?

The qualifications for pastors is given in 1 Timothy and Titus, and I don't find anything there about the necessity of having a D.D. or a Th.D. or even an M.Div. The qualifications have to do with spiritual living and practical application of the Scriptures to life and the work of God. Could the pastor, then, be ignorant? Indeed not. He has to be skillful in handling the Word of God--no small feat. The pastor has to be ãapt to teachä (1 Tim. 3:2). In Titus we see that the pastor must be a man who holds ãfast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayersä (Tit. 1:9). Thus he must have a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and of sound doctrine and he must have the ability to use this knowledge to edify the saints and to deal with false teachers. This is not a theoretical knowledge. This is ãrubber-meets-the-roadä knowledge. The pastors of the early churches were not scholars.

Consider the men who have been greatly used by God through the centuries. Were the mighty prophets of Israel raised up through the prophetsâ schools, for the most part? No, God individually called and anointed them. What about Charles Haddon Spurgeon? He had no degree, yet he wielded vastly more influence for God in this world than hundreds of his titled compatriots combined. He maintained a Pastorâs College, yet the goal of that college was not to award titles, but to grant men a practical knowledge of Jesus Christ and of His Eternal Word.

Please donât misunderstand me. I am for education and learning. I have been a diligent student all my Christian life. I have studied the Bible and associated material for an average of probably six hours a day for more than 27 years. I fear there are a great many men in the ministry today who are disqualified because they are too lazy to study. The possession of a degree does not make one a student. I am not exalting ignorance; I am exalting Godâs way of education over against the worldâs way. And I am rebuking the pride of man which is behind the phenomenon of ãscholarolatry.ä

ãStudy to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truthä (2 Timothy 2:15).

I also think of John Bunyan. He had wisdom from God, not from seminary.

James 3:17-18 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Originally Posted by Diligent

I eventually matured to the point where I understand that it is not so important, because I have accepted by the logic of faith that the King James Bible lacks nothing that the originals carried -- especially authority….the articles on this web site, which point to the "originals" in vindication of the KJV and against the Criticial Texts.

So true, so true!

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I am interested in knowing what the strict KJVOnly thinks about using the Greek, Hebrew and scholars.

There are articles on av1611.com that are written by scholars. There are also discussion on the Greek and Hebrew.

Diligent, please do not view this as a personal affront, but why do you write the following if you are willing to use the original biblical languages and scholarly articles? This seems inconsistent.

Why I as a King James Only, still present the Greek or Hebrew words at times is for 5 simple reasons.

1.) The English, while being birthed by several different languages, was in our King James Authorized Bible adjusted to the Greek and Hebrew by the King’s Translator’s. Hence, there is a Scriptural and spiritual connection between those languages. Not to mention, that there are in my opinion and that of Ruckman, places where the Greek and Hebrew may magnify the English text.

2.) There are many today that are taught that the King James Authorized bible is riddled with errors, particularly in regards to the Greek and Hebrew. It is our Job as King James Only’s to dispel these myths by showing that our Translator’s produce a superbly legitimate and accurate English Bible.

3.) Greek and Hebrew were both used by God far longer than the English has and therefore must not be cast aside so easily.

4.) If you go to a good English dictionary to look up words found in the Bible you will come across references to Greek and Hebrew.

5.) So we are not accused of being ignorant backwoods hillbillies.

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[bibleprotector]

1.) The English, while being birthed by several different languages, was in our King James Authorized Bible adjusted to the Greek and Hebrew by the King’s Translator’s. Hence, there is a Scriptural and spiritual connection between those languages. Not to mention, that there are in my opinion and that of Ruckman, places where the Greek and Hebrew may magnify the English text.

If the English is recognised as so fit, it is because it there has been a full transfer from the original languages. If complete, then why go backwards? Surely, God has been well able to get the full truth out in the Gentiles’ tongue?

2.) There are many today that are taught that the King James Authorized bible is riddled with errors, particularly in regards to the Greek and Hebrew. It is our Job as King James Only’s to dispel these myths by showing that our Translator’s produce a superbly legitimate and accurate English Bible.

The King James Bible has been vindicated numerous times, all the way from the days of the translators to the writings of Burgon, Hills and Holland. More than sufficient vindication has been given. Thus, it is only those who wish to remain ignorant that may do so. Why argue over the same ground, when we have plenty of proof in the Scripture itself, and in observations of providential signals, and in English studies.

3.) Greek and Hebrew were both used by God far longer than the English has and therefore must not be cast aside so easily.

This is a distortion. God has providentially worked for the laying aside Greek and Hebrew by degrees for years, to the point of utterly being for the English Bible around about now in history. Not only is God easily able to cast off one thing, and raise up another, but he is able to do so suddenly if He will. He is the one who can do a short work, to hasten it in the time of one man, and even do strange and terrible things to the confounding of the worldly wise.

4.) If you go to a good English dictionary to look up words found in the Bible you will come across references to Greek and Hebrew.

There are numerous words which have become English because of their presence in the Bible, and not because English comes from Hebrew (as the British Israelites say). The reason why there are references to Greek is to do with knowledge and learning and civilisation, which existed before the Christian religion dominated, and it is a fact that Roman words came to pass to be in Saxon before the English were converted to Christ (or Romanism). To use etymology as an argument to stay with the Greek is like saying that Latin and Old English should be taught at school to better understand the present language. I am sure there are more references to either Latin (via French) or Old English than to Greek in our English language.

5.) So we are not accused of being ignorant backwoods hillbillies.

First, no one should care if they are falsely accused of this, and secondly, being wise in the world's eyes is different to being wise in God's eyes.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

My disagreement with Matthew's view here is that he is giving a one-sided position of convenience, more theoretical than practical.

When we are on a forum and somebody like Rick Norris or some of the posters here falsely claim that the King James Bible has wrongly translated this Greek or that Hebrew or the other Aramaic, many of us will take the time to carefully show the fallacies in the accusation. Readers can note this happening again and again on this forum and I can point it out on other forums as well.

Yet I do not see Matthew objecting to our refutation of the false accusations, showing the improper language claims and pseudo-scholarship that is common from the anti-pure-KJB group. In fact my memory is that Matthew acknowledges and appreciates the refutations of false accusations, which posts are often very complementary to his specialty of the precision and accuracy of the English of the King James Bible.

And if we did not refute the false language accusations there would be left hanging a false impression about the particular verses and words, the errors would not be corrected. It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations, and that demonstration often involves exposing the false aspects of their appeals to the Greek and the Hebrew, or the Aramaic and Latin may come to play.

To make the corrections it is imperative to do a little lexicon checking, sometimes the forums like b-hebrew and b-greek are of solid assistance. Other resources as well, with those skilled in the languages like John Hinton and Thomas Strouse being of assistance.

Yet, writing as above, apparently Matthew would prefer that this playing field be vacated, and the inquiring readers be left with the sense that the King James Bible has made certain errors in translation. Leaving this vacuum I believe would be KJB-defense error.

Shalom,
Steven