Nehemiah 8:8-9 "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshathac, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the law."

The Babylon exiles learned the updated, marketplace Hebrew (Aramaic). When they returned to Jerusalem, they had difficulty understanding the old Hebrew. They needed an updated translation. So, the scribes provided updates and caused them to understand the sense of the older Hebrew. This is the biblical precedent for updating the language (even the same language).

The KJVOnly approach refuses to update the language so people can understand the sense. The KJVOnly approach is backward to biblical precedent. Teach the people Shakesperean English so they can understand the obsolete words. I am right in saying this, correct? Or, do you verbalize this differently?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Now, I will present why I believe, biblically, the KJVOnly position is wrong...

Before you post anything else, perhaps you should read the articles available on this website (click The King James Bible Page at the top).

There are no articles that deal with Nehemiah 8:8-9 on the site. Did you have a couple in mind? I will read them. I found John Hinton's interesting.

Now of you think a house divided against a house doesn't fall in any case other than demon possession, then you are beyond reason!

I believe there are multiple applications of a passage. Yet, those applications MUST be tied to the same interpretation. You say there are dual meanings. Words can have one meaning in each context. When we use words with two meanings, that is called double entendre. Do you understand why I am confused with your approach?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

The KJVOnly approach refuses to update the language so people can understand the sense. The KJVOnly approach is backward to biblical precedent. Teach the people Shakesperean English so they can understand the obsolete words. I am right in saying this, correct? Or, do you verbalize this differently?

Why did you cite a verse that disproves your own position?

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

You are twisting and wresting this verse to mean that we much change the Bible itself. This verse and the verses that follow show just the opposite -- it shows that book being read distinctly (so much for your multiple authorities) and that it was taught. It was preached! It was not changed or updated.

Helping someone understand the reading is not changing the reading. The KJV is a sense-for-sense translation of God's word from the original languages -- it does not need to be changed any more than it needed to be "changed" in Nehemiah's day.

Finally: you are offering a red herring. You know full well that the problem of modern versions does not begin or end with "updates" to help people "understand." Modern versions of the Bible eliminate portions of God's word. This is not "helping people understand" -- this is corruption.

We all waited with baited breath (heh) as you teased us with your great proof against holding a single standard for God's word -- and this is what you come up with?

Twisting God's word to make it say that you can change God's word is nothing less than corruption. If I were in your shoes, I'd tremble when reading Rev 22:19.

Not to get sidetracked, but you brought this out above. One of best things you can do as a moderator, is to provide the "Must Read" essential articles. Tell people that you expect them to read them before posting.

Then, in your registration form, you can use a spam eliminating question based on a question/answer that someone can only get from one of the articles. That way, you can be assured that people read these articles even before posting here.

Just a thought. I am not here to be a menace. I am here to learn and be helpful. I am not trying to tell you how to run your forum.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

Do you understand why I am confused with your approach?

Oh, absolutely. You have become enamored of your own scholarship and even the plain meanings of words are elusive to you now.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

There are no articles that deal with Nehemiah 8:8-9 on the site. Did you have a couple in mind? I will read them. I found John Hinton's interesting.

The point is that you have offered up several red herrings and straw man arguments already. You should get a more solid foundation before going on.

[Paladin54]

Originally Posted by Diligent

We all waited with baited breath (heh) as you teased us with your great proof against holding a single standard for God's word -- and this is what you come up with?

Echo Brandon.


And the storm is stilled....

[Debau]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I Your hermeneutic allows for dual meanings. "This verse teaches more than one truth....re-read the verse to find the second teaching: a house divided falleth."

Now...back to defending my position.

Brandon was clear when he said "more than one truth". That does not necessitiate contradiction. You must not be a dispensationalist.

You have jettisoned the rules of biblical interpretation. You have also skirted from answering many questions, many times answering a question with a question. I question your antics. I don't believe this is an honest attempt of you trying to understand the issue. You said you want to "get into our heads". That statement has a "dual meaning". I believe from your posts it has a negative connotation rather than one merely steered by curiosity. I'll ask the question asked of you again. What is your true purpose here? I perceive it is to drive a wedge in folks faith.

BTW: Psalm 12:6-7 is referring to the whole of Scripture. The Scriptures were for ever settled in heaven, in eternity- Psalms 119:89. They are not an evolutionary process. They are special revelation, complete in the Canon, unfolding to us . They are a binding contract, (covenant, judgments, testimonies, commandments, precepts). We as believers are to "keep" them. Guard them, and obey them.

Testament.
Hebrews 9:16-18
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Can a testament, contract, be ambiguous? Change-delete a zero here and there in your paycheck, and we'll see how you feel about playing loose with a contract. Is not our Holy God's words much more binding than any man made contract? Have you looked at Brandon's Westcott + Hort's Magic Marker Binge?(he provided it for you) Are two things different the same?(apparently, subjectiviely in the post modern relativistic world) You still have not answered what is your standard. You can't have it both ways. It's either-or, ONE standard, not both-and, multiple contradicting perversions corrupted "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8).

Correlating corroborating Scripture to Psalm 12:6-7 :

Deuteronomy 4:2: Ye shall not add unto the WORD which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS of the Lord your God which I command you.

Psalm 119:152: Concerning THY TESTIMONIES, I have known of old that THOU HAST FOUNDED THEM FOR EVER

Ecclesiastes 3:14: I know that WHATSOEVER GOD DOETH, it shall be FOR EVER: nothing can be put to it NOR ANY THING TAKEN FROM IT: and God doeth it, that men should fear before Him.

(If you don't understand these as Bible preservation, I believe you may be lacking fear of the Lord.)

Matthew 4:4: But he answered and said, IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.


Matthew 5:17-18: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.

2 John 1:2: For the TRUTH'S SAKE, which DWELLETH WITH US, AND SHALL BE WITH US FOR EVER

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

These are easy to understand.