[bibleprotector]

What this Bible translator was explaining is "never, never" is the "expression" being conveyed in all three translations: Greek - "ma genomia", English - "God forbid", and Spanish - "in ninguna manera". This is an idiomatic expression.

This implies that the sense as rendered in the KJB as it stands, i.e. “God forbid” is subject to change > not perfect > wrong. “God forbid” does not exactly mean “never, never”. They are different words with different meanings. If we have perfect words in English, i.e. “God forbid”, then the words “never, never” are imperfect renderings of the Word of God. They might be a possible translation, but it is not a perfect translation. On the level of total perfection, we have to say “God forbid” is exactly right. Therefore, any variations to “God forbid” in English are just going the wrong way, and to have those kinds of translations in other languages shows that they are always inferior to the KJB. That is why people from other lands should continue learning English.

And yes the KJV is perfect. And so if another translation is to render this expression perfectly they must do the same thing the KJV translators did when dealing with this idiomatic expression.

If the KJB is perfect, how could we think that the same perfection could exist somewhere else (except in heaven?) By perfect we mean:

a. exact wording/text/version (this is not found in any single extant edition of even the originals)

b. exact sense of the inspired original (this is not found in any translation in complete perfection, except the KJB)

They must translate the idiom using the strongest expression possible in the receptor language that conveys the idiomatic expression of the source language.

Near enough may be sufficient, but it is not EXACT. It is better for people to have access to the EXACT words and meanings as presented in the KJB, where there is absolute certainty. Other translations do not match up to this high standard, though many have been acceptable and useful.

I will give an example of the perfection of the KJB which comes down to its very presentation. This, I assume, would be totally absent from other translations. We note in the English Bible that the word “vail” is used for a covering cloth or curtain. However, we also find the word “veil” is used. “Veil” is always used meaning that the hidden thing is revealed or made known. (Not to be confused with a vail being taken from someone’s heart so that they understood something.) Do other translations differ or distinguish between “vail” and “veil” in their places?

A Missionary's job is not to promote their "culteral foundation" or teach English. His job is to preach the Gospel and teach the word of God.

If the exact form of the Word of God is in English and the people learn English, then the missionary can be certain that he is teaching people exactly what the highest advances of Christians in English-speaking countries believe. Moreover, since we are told to teach nations, baptise nations, and make them observe the exact words of God according to Matthew 28:19, 20, then to bring in the existing foundations of Christian national culture, and more importantly, to give them the exact Word of God in English cannot be wrong.

And if a person who is proud of his culture, race, and language refuses to be Americanized and Anglicized, the only way you are going to reach them is through their language and in their culture (in so far as that culture is not sinful or paganistic).

Existing national cultures being Christianised is proper. Teaching English or bringing in elements from Anglophone cultures is not wrong. But if people are against English or the Gospel because they are “proud of his culture, race, and language”... pride is a sin, and where patriotism or any other thing gets in the way of the Gospel, it is wrong. (It is just as wrong to enforce wrong unbiblical things onto cultures because they are from “civilised nations”, etc.) Racism is wrong too.

I believe that any people can have a Bible just as accurate and good as the KJB if that translation has the same basis (the Received Texts) as the KJV and every word in that translation is not in conflict with the words in the KJV. Newsflash - Jesus was not an Englishman.

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. 2. There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%. (Waite even says that no translation brings over 100%, which is a wrong idea on several grounds, first, that God is able to providentially get all His Word over, otherwise people cannot be saved, secondly, that English specifically has been prepared and had the full outworking to get the exact meanings present today in English.)

Even slight variations in the sense in good translations as when compared to the KJB are on the final level in conflict with the KJB. Historically they do not conflict with God's will, because of the principle of sufficient truth. But finally, once we go to the very jot and tittle, the very sense of the meaning of each word, the very structure of the sentence, etc. etc. we find that only the KJB is final authority, not the body of many versions/translations/editions of the original languages. That is to say, that the KJB supersedes and is successionary to them all, or “supersuccessionary”, therefore, why keep on making usurpers when we have the true king?

You are basing your position upon an assumption. ... that does not prove that the KJV is the END of God's promise to preserve His words. God gave us the KJV and we can now use the KJV as the standard to produce His pure words into other language.

Biblical reasoning shows there is an end of God’s promise as far as text and translation, there is NOT and end as far as the continual preservation of this particular Bible. God gave us the KJB, and we now use the KJB as the standard so that other nations and men of other languages may come to it to find His pure words. Yes the Scripture is pure, and purity may be found in other languages. But complete, seven-times, linguistic purity is only in the KJB today. (Revelation 14:6 shows one Gospel going to all languages, and Revelation 10 one book [KJB and KJB-based preaching]. This of course is the ultimate fulfilment of the prophecies, as it has been good to translate to other languages.)

That is ridiculous to use these verses as some sort of argument against translating God's words into other languages.

No, God was for translating to other languages. He is still using them today. 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.

Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anybody learning English.

Since the Jews are to hear the truth in another tongue, which means not Hebrew, and since the Jews know English ... the KJB must be for all, including the Jews. (When did the Greek preaching of the NT convert the Jews? It was only a "former rain" blessing which had modest [by today's Laodicean standards, "impossibly wonderful"] results.)

Zeph. 3:9 is a Millineal context that has no bearing upon Missionary work or the work of Bible translating today.

Since the Jews are to be turned to another language so that they may call upon God, are we to think that the conversion of Israel is only AFTER the Millennium begins? No, they are to believe before the return of Christ, and if you look at Romans 11:25, 26a, it says, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” ... That is not in the Millennium. The salvation of the Jews must accelerate now, while the Church is yet here. Therefore, it is the highest aim of missionary activity to get the Gospel to all the Gentiles, and to the Jews. Who is going to preach to the Jews? It has to be the people of God doing this missionary work. Zeph. 3:9's context is pre-Millennial.

God preserved for us His words in Greek, Hebrew, English, and many other languages

Actually, God preserved His Words in Hebrew and Greek for 1611 and to today so that they may now, that is to say, the knowledge of His words in those languages, may diminish. It is obvious that knowledge in Hebrew and Greek have diminished substantially in the last 100 years. How can we expect today’s translators to even come close to the KJB, as much as they might be KJB users and supporters? That is why it is better to teach the people English than to try and get second-rate Bible translations to them. They might not be “bad”, but they are just not the best. At present foreign Bible continue to be used, sure, but if we change our focus and aim now, we are sowing for a better future and the long term excellence for the whole Church.

I would love to see you go to some of the backwards tribes in New Guinea ... and other places in this world and see you try to teach these people English so that they can read the KJB and be saved.

You seem to have made up your mind that this endeavour would fail. I urge you not to accept Satanic thoughts that doubts that the Gospel can spread. I would to God that missionaries had much more success than what they have had. And that each of us grows to be many times greater Christians.

What I am saying is nothing short of a Christian Restitution. What we need is strong and proper conversions. Having the KJB as foundation to national and a proper world-wide evangelistic and teaching movement has to be the best thing. Don’t say it is “unrealistic”. Just look at how different Europe was after Luther! If the Word of God does not have power, then why even bother preach?

That is why God will call someone else to minister to them instead of you because while you would be wasting your time trying to minister in English to a non-english speaking people, souls are dying and going to hell, and the most efficient way to reach these people is in their language.

Past and short term outworkings are quite fine for foreign preaching and teaching. Unless there is a Christianity infused with divine mandate on a solid Bible as foundation, we will see the same (sad to say) lack and failure in the West as much as in the little results of missionary activity.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:12).

The KJB is foundation.

Ask ANY God-called Missionary that ever lived on this planet.

Why did David Livingston teach the brightest and best Christians in Africa English? Why did missions in Australia teach Aboriginals English? Surely this is a sign of the providence of God. There has been the day of going to other languages, now is the day of other languages coming to the Biblical English.

We don’t have to wait for the Millennium for Christian success, if you interpret Scripture in line with the symbols of the Church age of grace:

“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:2).

[bibleprotector]

Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

[MC1171611]

While I'm not (yet) a missionary, and I do not yet speak Spanish well enough to be an authority, let me insert something here to try to calm down the altercation. I didn't read the William Carey site, and I don't really have any intention of doing so (that's their business, I'm doing other things ), but is it really possible to argue that for basic salvation and discipleship of people in foreign countries, their own language is the best way to reach them? Regardless of the "inerrancy" of the Bible used in that language, as long as you can teach them how to be saved and get them started growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, as much as they can glean from their Bible, they will profit from it.

Now, being that I'm only familiar with the English Bible issue and the Spanish, I cannot speak authoritatively about any other language. However, if God has provided an excellent translation of the Bible, like the Valera 1865 in Spanish, that can be used to teach and expound even the deepest Biblical doctrines, then there is no reason to spend years teaching them English just so you can turn around and struggle to teach them deep doctrine in a language they can barely understand. If that were to happen, then those men have to turn around and continue evangelizing their people, teaching them English, and struggling the same way again and again. That is if there is at least an acceptable Bible in that language.

However, if the language does not currently have a good, Philadelphian-age Bible, then you're stuck with a few people translating, to the best of their abilities, the Bible into that language, or a missionary spending years of his time teaching some people the second-hardest language in the world (English) and again struggling through Doctrine in a language the people are unfamiliar with. This is an option, and the best one at that (since God's perfect word is in English!), but if there are alternatives to that they should be considered fully.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool "Ruckmanite" King James Only Bible Believer. I will accept nothing over or equal to the King James Bible, in English or otherwise. That being said, I'm also (somewhat) multi-lingual and rather well-versed in idiomatic and linguistic problems between languages. I think this society is doing a good thing (for languages without a decent translation of the Bible currently, that is) even though I may disagree with individuals or whatnot. The point is that teaching English to every foreign convert, or even national pastor, is impractical and unnecessary as long as the word of God is available in a faithful, though obviously not perfect, translation.

[stephanos]

I think it is good for a missionary to start with the simplicity that is the gospel, in the native tongue of those he's evangelising. And then while discipling them he should be preaching from the KJV in their language (translating things which are used in his sermons), while teaching faithful men how to read the English AV1611.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV)

And these new teachers can then teach other natives how to read the KJV in ESL classes at the newly formed churces. I think this is the best way to get the Pure Word of God into everyones hands. The reality of the issue is that translating the AV1611 into every language on the planet is impractical. Sending a missionaries to every tribe/tongue to start the process I just spoke of seems to me much more practical. If someone wants to do a full translation in a different language, there is of course, no reason this should not be done. I just believe that time could be better spent training new pastors and teaching them to read the KJV, and then moving on to the next country to begin the process again.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This implies that the sense as rendered in the KJB as it stands, i.e. “God forbid” is subject to change > not perfect > wrong. “God forbid” does not exactly mean “never, never”. They are different words with different meanings. If we have perfect words in English, i.e. “God forbid”, then the words “never, never” are imperfect renderings of the Word of God. They might be a possible translation, but it is not a perfect translation. On the level of total perfection, we have to say “God forbid” is exactly right. Therefore, any variations to “God forbid” in English are just going the wrong way, and to have those kinds of translations in other languages shows that they are always inferior to the KJB. That is why people from other lands should continue learning English.

Again, you just don't get it. And I sense that you refuse TO get it because you want to convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. Yet you don't. "Never, never" is the EXPRESSION of the idiom in question (ma genomia). The point of the article was simply that a literal translation of an idiomatic expression will not always work and make sense in the receptor language. Therefore, the translator must understand the expression of the idiom in order to know how to translate it and in this case the expression is "never, never". In English, the strongest way to convey that expression is to say "God forbid". But that may not be the strongest way to convey that expression in another language. The point is that when dealing with idiomatic expressions an exception to translating literally must be made in order for the translation to make sense in the target language. But I feel that I can explain this point a hundred times and you still won't get it.

If the KJB is perfect, how could we think that the same perfection could exist somewhere else (except in heaven?) By perfect we mean:

a. exact wording/text/version (this is not found in any single extant edition of even the originals)

b. exact sense of the inspired original (this is not found in any translation in complete perfection, except 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. Your insistence that no Bible in another language can be just as accurate as the KJV is totally faithless. God did not die in 1611 nor in the Philadelphian Church age.

Near enough may be sufficient, but it is not EXACT. It is better for people to have access to the EXACT words and meanings as presented in the KJB, where there is absolute certainty. Other translations do not match up to this high standard, though many have been acceptable and useful.

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. He breathed out His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So if you want to play the EXACT card, quit using the KJV and become a "TR guy" to the extreme by ONLY using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Your position is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

I will give an example of the perfection of the KJB which comes down to its very presentation. This, I assume, would be totally absent from other translations. We note in the English Bible that the word “vail” is used for a covering cloth or curtain. However, we also find the word “veil” is used. “Veil” is always used meaning that the hidden thing is revealed or made known. (Not to be confused with a vail being taken from someone’s heart so that they understood something.) Do other translations differ or distinguish between “vail” and “veil” in their places?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the translating of idiomatic expressions. Again, you just don't get it.

If the exact form of the Word of God is in English and the people learn English, then the missionary can be certain that he is teaching people exactly what the highest advances of Christians in English-speaking countries believe. Moreover, since we are told to teach nations, baptise nations, and make them observe the exact words of God according to Matthew 28:19, 20, then to bring in the existing foundations of Christian national culture, and more importantly, to give them the exact Word of God in English cannot be wrong.

Again what you are proposing is a distortion of scripture. In Mat. 28:19-20 Christ was not mandating His disciples to teach all nations English, it was a mandate to teach and preach (Mark 16) the Gospel, not "the existing foundations of Christian national culture" (whatever that is).

Existing national cultures being Christianised is proper. Teaching English or bringing in elements from Anglophone cultures is not wrong. But if people are against English or the Gospel because they are “proud of his culture, race, and language”... pride is a sin, and where patriotism or any other thing gets in the way of the Gospel, it is wrong. (It is just as wrong to enforce wrong unbiblical things onto cultures because they are from “civilised nations”, etc.) Racism is wrong too.

I never said that pride was not a sin. It definitely is. But what I did say is that pride of culture, race, and language exists and is a reality that must be dealt with. 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. What you propose is definitely not how Paul operated according to 1 Cor. 9:19-23.

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.

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.

2. 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.

(Waite even says that no translation brings over 100%, which is a wrong idea on several grounds, first, that God is able to providentially get all His Word over, otherwise people cannot be saved, secondly, that English specifically has been prepared and had the full outworking to get the exact meanings present today in English.)

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. But when it comes to the matter of translating, it is wise for the translator to avail himself of ALL available resources (just like the KJV translators did) during the process of translating. Because when you get involved in translating, you're going to find out quick that you're going to need more than one language source to aid you when trying to figure out what word or words to choose to accurately translate. Those who say that the KJV is ALL we need, or the Greek & Hebrew is ALL we need, have obviously never been involved with translating before and therefore do not understand the nature of translation work.

Even slight variations in the sense in good translations as when compared to the KJB are on the final level in conflict with the KJB. Historically they do not conflict with God's will, because of the principle of sufficient truth. But finally, once we go to the very jot and tittle, the very sense of the meaning of each word, the very structure of the sentence, etc. etc. we find that only the KJB is final authority, not the body of many versions/translations/editions of the original languages. That is to say, that the KJB supersedes and is successionary to them all, or “supersuccessionary”, therefore, why keep on making usurpers when we have the true king?

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.

Biblical reasoning shows there is an end of God’s promise as far as text and translation, there is NOT and end as far as the continual preservation of this particular Bible. God gave us the KJB, and we now use the KJB as the standard so that other nations and men of other languages may come to it to find His pure words. Yes the Scripture is pure, and purity may be found in other languages. But complete, seven-times, linguistic purity is only in the KJB today. (Revelation 14:6 shows one Gospel going to all languages, and Revelation 10 one book [KJB and KJB-based preaching]. This of course is the ultimate fulfilment of the prophecies, as it has been good to translate to other languages.)

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. That is nothing but an assumption. You are speculating that the one book in Rev. 10 is the KJV yet you are building an entire premise based on this speculation.

No, God was for translating to other languages. He is still using them today. 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.

Chapter and verse. I'd love to see you demonstrate that in the scriptures. What I do find is God gifting the Apostles in the book of Acts with a supernatural ability to preach in unknown tongues. The book of Acts is the very manual for Missions. 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.

Since the Jews are to hear the truth in another tongue, which means not Hebrew, and since the Jews know English ... the KJB must be for all, including the Jews. (When did the Greek preaching of the NT convert the Jews? It was only a "former rain" blessing which had modest [by today's Laodicean standards, "impossibly wonderful"] results.)

Sorry, but no matter how you try to twist it, Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anyone learning English. Paul already told what it was a reference to in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 and so 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.

Since the Jews are to be turned to another language so that they may call upon God, are we to think that the conversion of Israel is only AFTER the Millennium begins? No, they are to believe before the return of Christ, and if you look at Romans 11:25, 26a, it says, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” ... That is not in the Millennium. The salvation of the Jews must accelerate now, while the Church is yet here. Therefore, it is the highest aim of missionary activity to get the Gospel to all the Gentiles, and to the Jews. Who is going to preach to the Jews? It has to be the people of God doing this missionary work. Zeph. 3:9's context is pre-Millennial.

During the Tribulation period the church is not going to be here. So the ones preaching to the Jews are going to be the converts of the 2 witnesses in Rev. 11 (most likely Moses and Elijah). There will be 144000 Jewish converts according to Rev. 7 and 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.

Actually, God preserved His Words in Hebrew and Greek for 1611 and to today so that they may now, that is to say, the knowledge of His words in those languages, may diminish. It is obvious that knowledge in Hebrew and Greek have diminished substantially in the last 100 years. How can we expect today’s translators to even come close to the KJB, as much as they might be KJB users and supporters? That is why it is better to teach the people English than to try and get second-rate Bible translations to them. They might not be “bad”, but they are just not the best. At present foreign Bible continue to be used, sure, but if we change our focus and aim now, we are sowing for a better future and the long term excellence for the whole Church.

I don't disagree that we do not have anyone today that could even shine the KJV translators shoes. But what I am arguing for is the validity of foreign Bible translations. It is much needed. You are insisting that it is not needed. 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. Sure, perhaps it is possible to teach some groups English. But first off, do you even realize how long it would take to teach an uneducated tribalman, who can't even read or write his own language, one of the most complex and difficult languages in the world. We need people to get saved NOW, not 2 years later when they might understand English good enough. THINK about what you are proposing. It is ridiculous. The resources used to teach English and American culture could have been used translating the words of God into the language of the people. You accomplish that (a Bible translation) and you will leave behind something that God will continue to use to minister to those people generations after your gone and dead. What's going to happen when the English teacher is gone and/or dead. Will those who learn English, learn it good enough to teach it to others and pass it down from generation to generation? You tell me which of these 2 options is more efficient and will yield the most lasting effects.

You seem to have made up your mind that this endeavour would fail. I urge you not to accept Satanic thoughts that doubts that the Gospel can spread. I would to God that missionaries had much more success than what they have had. And that each of us grows to be many times greater Christians.

A missionary will have all the "success" that God intends for them to have by simply obeying the Great Commission, which is to preach the Gospel, not to teach English and American cuture.

What I am saying is nothing short of a Christian Restitution. What we need is strong and proper conversions. Having the KJB as foundation to national and a proper world-wide evangelistic and teaching movement has to be the best thing. Don’t say it is “unrealistic”. Just look at how different Europe was after Luther! If the Word of God does not have power, then why even bother preach?

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.

Past and short term outworkings are quite fine for foreign preaching and teaching. Unless there is a Christianity infused with divine mandate on a solid Bible as foundation, we will see the same (sad to say) lack and failure in the West as much as in the little results of missionary activity.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:12).

The KJB is foundation.

God's pure words in any language is foundation.

Why did David Livingston teach the brightest and best Christians in Africa English? Why did missions in Australia teach Aboriginals English? Surely this is a sign of the providence of God. There has been the day of going to other languages, now is the day of other languages coming to the Biblical English.

We don’t have to wait for the Millennium for Christian success, if you interpret Scripture in line with the symbols of the Church age of grace:

“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:2).

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.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

Don't even try to compare what I am talking about to the NKJV. The New King James was an attempt to product an "easier-to-understand" translation, which we know turned out to be nothing but a watered down counterfeit. Besides, since the KJV is perfect it needs no revision anyways so the NKJV was nothing but a waste to begin with. What I'm talking about is something totally different. What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages. It can be done so long as we have the KJV as our guide.

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I think it is good for a missionary to start with the simplicity that is the gospel, in the native tongue of those he's evangelising. And then while discipling them he should be preaching from the KJV in their language (translating things which are used in his sermons), while teaching faithful men how to read the English AV1611.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV)

And these new teachers can then teach other natives how to read the KJV in ESL classes at the newly formed churces. I think this is the best way to get the Pure Word of God into everyones hands. The reality of the issue is that translating the AV1611 into every language on the planet is impractical. Sending a missionaries to every tribe/tongue to start the process I just spoke of seems to me much more practical. If someone wants to do a full translation in a different language, there is of course, no reason this should not be done. I just believe that time could be better spent training new pastors and teaching them to read the KJV, and then moving on to the next country to begin the process again.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but an armchair quarterback may have all sorts of ideas that may sound good, make a lot of sense, and seem like its the best strategy. But his perspective of what really works will never be as accurate as an actual quarterback in the NFL who has been there and done that. I speak as a fool but I have had the privilege of ministering to Hispanic people representing many different Hispanic cultures from around the world for several years. I also get to rub shoulders with hundreds of Missionaries around the world. I'm simply telling you that from my experience and from what I have gleaned from the experience of others, teaching EVERYONE english as a primary objective in Foreign Mission work is not a realistic option. I'm not saying that it may not work for some groups, but I am saying that it will not work for MOST groups.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.

While above I defend the Scrivener Greek text that represents the King James Bible, this misses a few points.

Scrivener's position was more milquetoast. Example: Wesley defended the Johannine Comma (quoting quite beautifully with a bit of modification the mariner's compass poem of Bengelius) Scrivener attacked it .. even while essentially recognizing the Cyprian citation. Scrivener also attacked other TR verses like Acts 8:37.

Noah Webster was a grammatical 'corrector', not a textual corrector. His view of the grammar of the King James Bible was similar to the Scrivener view of the text and translation, a desire to make "corrections", to meddle and muddle. With Scrivener that is why he was on the Revision committee, that is why even his Cambridge Paragraph Bible changed faith to hope in Hebrews 10:23 and why he wrote specifically opposing various Greek-minority TR verses.

Dean Burgon, while not strictly TR, never attacked these verses and wrote in a way that favored every more significant Received Text verse. Even in his case it would be more accurate to say he uplifted the Traditional Text. From outside Dean Burgon decimated the corrupt Revision, smashed it to smithareens. Something never done by the compromised Scrivener, who had been on the Committee.

Scrivener in a sense gave the Revision legitimacy by being on the committee and losing the textual battles against Hort the mesmerist (my conjecture, based on the seance attendance with occultists/mesmerists even when older). Losing in this context means outvoted in the Revision Committee. Even if he went in without full understanding, after a day or a month or a year of the charade he would better have left the Revision. Afaik, he remained to the bitter end and must be considered as an active participant in the biggest textual disaster of some centuries. (ie. Combined with the W-H Greek text accepted by the participants.) What did he accomplish in his 10 years or so ? Perhaps Scrivener prevented a couple of laughable Hortian "primitive corruptions" into the text or effected the manner the Revised Version deceived the publich in including the ending of Mark against its own text. Better to let the dogs lie to one another and have time for prayer and sleep.

While we can respect his scholarship (even including some of his KJB scholarship and historical analysis) and appreciate greatly his Greek KJB-text, and note various arguments he made that were solid, we should be slow to give F H A Scrivener more than faint praise, if that, for his Bible views overall. While he definitely should not be confused with Westcott, Metzger, Aland etc. his overall Bible text legacy is mixed.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

"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.

[bibleprotector]

Besides, since the KJV is perfect

Therefore we do not need Hebrew and Greek as a basis for translating or interpreting or doctrine.

What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages.

And how is accuracy measured?

By Hebrew and Greek?
By a scholar or denominations' opinions?
By all sources? (How do you pick and choose between them?)
By the KJB?

If the KJB is perfect, then other translations would always be a little inaccurate, and therefore it is better (and easier) to teach the world English (which is already far advanced a billion people) and us use the KJB for our Christianisation.

P.S. Do you agree that the KJB has exactly 100% the meanings of the original words that were inspired in the original langauges with nothing taken away or added?