[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

And what better sources to consult than the Received Texts in the original languages themselves, of which I would recommend the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text for Hebrew, and Scrivener's text for Greek since his is the only edition of the Greek TR text that was produced to match up with the KJV word for word.

The problem is not in using these things as secondary sources. The problem is the wrong idea that Scrivener’s Greek matches the KJB. It doesn’t exactly. Likewise, Bomberg’s Hebrew does not match the KJB either. The KJB being an INDEPENDENT form of the Received Text will not be matched up by any traditional or recent re-construction in the original languages.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

I would think that Bible Believers who know the history of how their KJB came about would understand from the example set by the King James translators the importance of consulting several sources FOR LINGUISTIC PURPOSES in the process of translating.

Once the KJB translators had consulted a variety of translations, and made “one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue” are we to deny this finality, and say that our KJB is only an independent variety of the Received Text, but not the final translation, presenting the exact text in the English tongue? The problem here is the denial that the KJB contains the final and full sense-for-sense essence in the English, so that consolation of other translations is not required (though not forbidden). Unless we understand that the complete meaning is right here, there will always be a loophole for running to the original languages etc. to find out what the KJB really means in this or that place. That is the wrong approach for studying the Scripture itself.

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez

The Great Commission is not introducing "Anglo-phone Protestant culture" (whatever that is) to the world and to force everyone to learn English.

That is a misunderstanding on the part of my accuser. When I referred to Anglophone culture, I was talking about the basis for our evangelisation of the world, not to turn every nation into a British or American colony or something (as is the implication of the above accusation).

Let me explain it more: the highest level of revelation and the greatest progress of the Church is with the Anglo-Protestant spirit in several nations. If anyone should, and if anyone is going to evangelise widely, it should and must be people from this tradition. Not Eastern Orthodox Church of Greece. Not the Luthern Church of Denmark. But the highest and best form of Christian doctrine which comes out of the Anglo-Protestant tradition.

Let’s put it all together:

1. We know where the best doctrinal progression is (the advance of truth of Anglo-Protestantism in Anglophone nations),
2. We know what the best Bible is in all the world (the KJB), and
3. We know what language is global, and fast going everywhere (English).

Therefore, it must be that God has raised up the Church in England, America and Australia; that God has raised up the KJB; and that God’s providential purposes are behind the dominion of the English language.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, ... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:19a, 20.)

Nations are to be taught to observe the very words of Christ. The only place where all His words are fully gathered and accurately given is in the KJB. Now Christ has been able to speak by many translations, it is true, but we have not seen a wholesale teaching of nations the truth since the Reformation. We have seen some degree of it, but we must see it yet. The most effective way to reach nations (plural) is with one Bible in one language. The fact that Christ is with us in the end must mean that Christ is with us as we turn ourselves into alignment with this ideal before the end.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Manny

The problem I have with Matthew's way (or Bibleprotector) is that he insists that the Great Commission is to convert all cultures of the world to what he calls an Anglo-phone Protestant culture and thereby force everyone and there mother to learn English. He believes that this method is the fulfillment of verses in the Bible (some of which he has posted throughout this thread). But this is sheer nonsense. He is twisting scripture to promote his private interpretation. And he is out of touch with reality as to ministering to people of a different culture.

Of course this statement is sheer nonsense since it not what I stand for, neither what I insisted upon.

1. The Great Commission is not about changing cultures into Anglo-American cultures, but to transform cultures to be Christian, which may indeed take elements from our tradition, such as proper Christmas, Easter, etc.

2. Nobody is being "forced" to be or learn English, neither is it being made the mother tongue (by threat).

3. The Scripture promises are for things such as national obedience, the future elevation of the KJB, etc. (If not the KJB, what is it that would fulfil Romans 16:26, etc.?)

4. If these things be my "private interpretation", how is it that the come from a basis of traditional Anglo-Protestant teachings? (See below.)

5. Preparing for world KJB promotion might be not how the world thinks. It is like saying that Noah was out of touch with reality when he built an ark, etc. etc.

Specific references to God using the British/English Church are in Patrick, Gildas, Hakluyt, KJB translators, Mede, Cromwell et al., Fuller, etc. References to Australia being used are in Johnson, Lang and Parkes. References to the progress of the Church in the last days are in many authors. Scripture itself refers to its own exaltation.

Muir in 1911 wrote, "we find that the outcome of the labours of the translators was a volume which ever since it first appeared has gone forth conquering and to conquer, and which under God and through the testimony of His Holy Spirit, has been not merely the source of Britain’s greatness, but a source of blessing and consolation, of inspiration and revival." Again, "Into the midst of all this yearning and all this darkness, the Bible came as a river of life. There had been tiny springs elsewhere which sent forth their streams, for God has never left Himself without a witness; but this is the river of God in all its majesty and fullness, and nowhere has it flowed more wonderfully into the lives of men than through our own Authorized Version." Again, "DURING these three centuries of service the Authorized Version has done a great work, not only in the home and the Church, but also in the wider sphere of the national life. It has played a great part in the development of the nation on broad, generous lines; and has had far more to do with the prosperity of Great Britain and her offshoots, as compared with the Latin [nations]."

Either we are of a Christianity which is failing, and have a weak God and no certainty for the future of our Bible, or else we have a Christianity which is alive when all is dead, present when all things are destroyed, and gathered when all things are scattered. It makes no difference to the Gospel whether tens of thousands say today that they see it another way. The danger is if people deliberately go against the work of God, and make untrue claims about it.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Tony,

Your quote:
There isn't any need for an apology brother, it wasn't necessary. I wasn't offended by your comments; I only was asking WHO you were referring to.

If you check out the entire Thread you will see that I not only welcomed brother Manny Rodriguez, but I was in agreement with much of what he presented. Brother Manny is a missionary to Puerto Rico, and he seems to be a genuine Bible believer. I do not require that every Christian dance to the music that I play, however, some of the people who come on the Forum represent themselves as Bible believers, and if you asked them for a simple DEFINITION of the Holy Bible they'll start to refer to the "originals"; or they’ll start talking about "plenary inspiration"; or “The Greek”; or “The Hebrew”; or “The Textus Receptus”; or “The Majority Text”; etc.; etc.; ad nauseam (until it’s enough to make a Hippo gag)!

You and I both know that the “ORIGINAL” Oracles of God (the Scriptures) haven’t been seen by any one alive for the last 1,800 years (for the New Testament) and up to a 3,400 years (or more) for the Old Testament. Why is it so difficult for a genuine BIBLE believer to give a simple definition for the Holy Bible?

My point simply is - that the Holy BIBLE is a BOOK that you can hold in your hands, NOT some pile of manuscripts - gathering dust in the Pope's Library; or in some great “Classical” European University; or in some European Library. The Holy BIBLE is not the “Textus Receptus” or the so-called “Majority Text”; and the HOLY BIBLE is certainly NOT the modern texts (Nestles/Aland-Metzger) take your pick. All of those “texts” contain the word/words of God (some more than others); but none of them is THE HOLY BIBLE!

Because of all of the Humanists and Sophists (both within and without Christian circles) today, it is necessary to DEFINE words - so that we all can know who or what is being spoken of. I repeat: THE HOLY BIBLE is a BOOK that we can hold in our hands, and as such, if men are going to translate God’s word/words into various languages, they should be using THE HOLY BIBLE for there “exemplar” (foundation) and FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the words to be translated.

I am not trying to disparage the work of sincere Bible translators, but if they are going to translate THE HOLY BIBLE, then they should be USING THE HOLY BIBLE as their foundation! I am not saying that other translations can’t be used for comparison (the King James translators compared the previous English translations), what I am saying is simply this: in determining which words to translate into other languages, the King James Bible should be the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining which words to use. If it is NOT the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the choice of words, then we are right back to square one – MULTIPLE AUTHORITIES!

As I said before brother, there is no need to apologize. If I thought you had done wrong or if I were offended I would accept your apology, and I understand your concerns; it’s just that I like CLARITY. It’s so much easier to discuss Scriptural issues if we all start out on the same page, and with a basic understanding (definition) of words.

You will notice that whenever I Post, I always site the “Thread” first (so people will know WHAT I am addressing); and then I either address an individual (and his comments) or the entire Forum (so people will know WHO I am addressing). I use the word “aloha” in my address to begin with, unless I perceive that I am dealing with someone that doesn’t deserve “aloha”; and once I am fairly sure I am dealing with one of the “brethren”, I will address them as brother or sister. I DO NOT use “titles” such as “Reverend”, or “Pastor”, or “Doctor” in addressing a brother in Christ.

At this point in my life (at 68 years old), other than preaching the Gospel (which ALL Christians should be doing – not just “pastors”) - I have four basic concerns: WORSHIPPING THE LORD (“in spirit and in truth”); SOUND DOCTRINE (I am a “moderate” Dispensationalist); CHRISTIAN LIVING {Concerning our conduct towards the brethren and the lost); and DEFENDING THE BIBLE (A BOOK that I can hold in my hands).

I am sure that there are certain “issues” that we disagree on brother, but on the other hand, you have a “unique perspective” on Scriptural matters that I appreciate – sometimes. This one thing I know for sure – there will come a day when we will all come together in the UNITY that is in the Lord Jesus Christ. And in that day ALL of our doctrinal differences are going to disappear in a moment. Until then, as long as a brother or sister doesn’t spout unmistakable heresy, I will try to make the effort to get along (as much as lieth in me).

Then let's agree to disagree and discuss the differences like gentlemen. FFF is a boxing ring with many, many people beating the air before them. It's where I will like to go when I feel grim and firm and rebuking. This forum is fellowship and discussion. A place to teach and to learn.

George, as ex-Church Of Christ there are two dispensations with those people: The OT and the NT. Period. We were not taught to use the Bible as it's own dictionary and commentary. I've been COC, attended a Baptist church, been in several Grace churches, and got confused. So I threw everything out and began at square one. What I will discuss is what I found.
I know we can be "moderate" dispensationalists but need to ask: Is that like being "moderately" pregnant? Stam's "dispensationalism" ended where his Calvinism and belief in The Original Manuscript Fraud begins. To me, the greatest enemy of right division is where it ends and denominational traditions begins. I'm CALLED a "hyper dry cleaner" just because of my belief on water baptism, but I do believe I have a few things about being "graffed" my Grace bretheren and sisteren need to examine.

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the original manuscripts 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.

Brother, is that what the verse says? No. It says:

Isa 34:16 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.

We differ in details, but have the same apostle, the same book, the same saviour God, the same fellowship in one blood and one body.

Grace and peace to you brother George

Tony

[Debau]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Of course this statement is sheer nonsense since it not what I stand for, neither what I insisted upon.

1. The Great Commission is not about changing cultures into Anglo-American cultures, but to transform cultures to be Christian, which may indeed take elements from our tradition, such as proper Christmas, Easter, etc.
2. Nobody is being "forced" to be or learn English, neither is it being made the mother tongue (by threat).

3. The Scripture promises are for things such as national obedience, the future elevation of the KJB, etc. (If not the KJB, what is it that would fulfil Romans 16:26, etc.?)

4. If these things be my "private interpretation", how is it that the come from a basis of traditional Anglo-Protestant teachings? (See below.)

5. Preparing for world KJB promotion might be not how the world thinks. It is like saying that Noah was out of touch with reality when he built an ark, etc. etc.

Specific references to God using the British/English Church are in Patrick, Gildas, Hakluyt, KJB translators, Mede, Cromwell et al., Fuller, etc. References to Australia being used are in Johnson, Lang and Parkes. References to the progress of the Church in the last days are in many authors. Scripture itself refers to its own exaltation.

Muir in 1911 wrote, "we find that the outcome of the labours of the translators was a volume which ever since it first appeared has gone forth conquering and to conquer, and which under God and through the testimony of His Holy Spirit, has been not merely the source of Britain’s greatness, but a source of blessing and consolation, of inspiration and revival." Again, "Into the midst of all this yearning and all this darkness, the Bible came as a river of life. There had been tiny springs elsewhere which sent forth their streams, for God has never left Himself without a witness; but this is the river of God in all its majesty and fullness, and nowhere has it flowed more wonderfully into the lives of men than through our own Authorized Version." Again, "DURING these three centuries of service the Authorized Version has done a great work, not only in the home and the Church, but also in the wider sphere of the national life. It has played a great part in the development of the nation on broad, generous lines; and has had far more to do with the prosperity of Great Britain and her offshoots, as compared with the Latin [nations]."

Either we are of a Christianity which is failing, and have a weak God and no certainty for the future of our Bible, or else we have a Christianity which is alive when all is dead, present when all things are destroyed, and gathered when all things are scattered. It makes no difference to the Gospel whether tens of thousands say today that they see it another way. The danger is if people deliberately go against the work of God, and make untrue claims about it.

Aside from Manny previously answering your statements and questions accurately and ably, I've wondered where you derive your motivation for your "KJB Only" view, which by my definition of your view is a pedantic myopia which actually makes the word of God of none effect.
I wonder if it is your theological view which seems to be Dominion/Kingdom emphasizing the social gospel built on a foundation of "Protestant tradition". After all, you question whether your view is a private interpretation or not based on the "authority" of whether or not your views "come from a basis of Tradional Anglo-Protestant Teachings".
I agree with Manny your point of view is "racist ideology" which does nothing but sows discord among the brethren.

[bibleprotector]

It seems that the TRO (or associated views) response is to drive to extremes wrong implications and false motives to what I have plainly laid out, which is that the KJB is for all nations, i.e. the human race (there is only one race, and all nations come from Noah).

If traditional Anglo-Protestant teachings are generally repudiated, it means the rejection of anything of the Anglican, Puritan, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Holiness and Traditional Pentecostal. Were not all these movements furthered or based upon using the King James Bible? Anglo-Protestant means the Christianity which has its roots in England, and beyond. It is plain as anything that many people from other nations have already got their same doctrine from these sources. A good deal of Christianity in places like PNG, Fiji or New Zealand can be attributed to the Anglo-Protestant tradition, that is, I am sure that there are folk in denominations in those countries which believe the same as folk in America do.

It should be simple to see that the Great Commission does mean teaching lots of people the truth, and that Romans 16:26 does show the Gospel going forth in power. The Scripture also predicts that some nations are going down, such as the Russian-led Northern Confederacy.

The erroneous accusations against me might also be resolved by reading this quote from my book:

The Holy Ghost had indeed worked to gather together the pure Word. The words outlining this doctrine should, by God’s grace, form an expeditionary army of a new model, which would either persuade or repel present King James Bible proponents. There must be a move away from petty name calling, unscholarly works and fearfulness of Jesuit powers, into a clear and true understanding of God’s Word in English, and the consequences of establishing the Word to consume the power of the Antichrist false “Word”. Instead of thinking in terms of pervading worldliness and apostasy, Christians must think in terms of the prevailing Word, that it is a day star in comparison to the world, a city on a hill which cannot be hid. In doing this we must guard against those who would think to overthrow Bible-ordered tradition to construct a tyrannical rule upon the Earth.

The Protestant tradition and the authoritative doctrines coming out of English-speaking nations are not wrong. And the King James Bible is a fit standard by which all ideas and people, including nations, are to be judged.