[bibleprotector]

... Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible better. Regardless of some people's loss of understanding, his Concordance is still in use and still gives the standard definition of Bible words - so it is still a reliable tool.

This is a statement from someone who clearly does not believe that full revelation is in the English alone, that is to say, in the King James Bible alone. While various things may be defined as helps, and are therefore useful, they can never be the standard by which knowledge is judged. Strong's Concordance is quite imperfect and not fully reliable. Not totally wrong, but not totally right. This is the same with all Greek studies and so on today. Even the modernists will have some correct things in what they say and teach. The problem is that anyone who is appealing to the Greek in this way is really denying that we have the Word of God perfectly, fully and exactly in English. They are saying that somehow there is more revelation to be got by considering other sources, sources which differ (even minutely) to the King James Bible (e.g. Strong's, Scrivener's TR, etc.). But all the necessary fullness is there with the King James Bible, and other sources should be used in subjection to it.

To go about in the opposite way is to find that there is no ultimate authority. For example, if you start from the Greek, and then say the King James Bible is accurate, there is one problem, and that is that there is no ultimately perfect form of Greek to which you can actually show and see that the King James Bible is accurate. Now, we know that the King James Bible is accurate to the Greek, but we have no final standard of appeal in any Greek text or any concordance to "prove" the King James Bible correct. Rather, what we have is the King James Bible, and many witnesses which generally approve of it.

[bibleprotector]

I said: "it is now much better to teach foreigners and natives English, and give them the KJB, than it is to translate into their languages."

I stand by this as the approach Christians should be tending toward now, and pursuing from now on.

I believe this to be a false extreme. Its better to do for them what Tyndale did for us. . .translate the Scripture into their languages. You may do well to translate the KJV into other languages (this is all Scrivener did for his TR). Others will do well to translate their bibles into other languages.

It seems "extreme" to say teach them English, because throughout history the Word of God has rightly gone into other languages. However, the world is now learning English, and this means that we can have one Bible, which we know is perfect, rather than many different versions. The problem is that there are tiny differences between all TR editions, and tiny differences between all TR-based translations (just look at the ongoing saga surrounding the Spanish TR-based translation).

What Tyndale did was very good, and what the others did for other languages likewise. But the Scripture is indicating something more:

"For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11).

"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent." (Zephaniah 3:9).

To have another tongue besides Hebrew for the Word of God to come to the Jews must mean English. To have a pure language to know things properly in the time from now on must be the language of the King James Bible. This is because ONE FINAL language is being indicated.

Certainly it would be better to translate the King James Bible into another language than probably any particular Greek TR edition, and it is reported that this occurred in the Missionary Movement. But we have advanced beyond that time, where the Reformation learning has almost failed, where the modern version thinking has taken over, and most especially where all the indications of divine providence are that English is the global language and that the King James Bible is correct and most fitting to be the world wide Bible for the true Church Remnant.

[bibleprotector]

From my own study of this issue, the 1769 edition is how the 1611 was intended.

Yes, but there has been some slight changes since 1769 in the Cambridge Edition. E.g. 1769 has "Beer-sheba, Sheba" at Joshua 19:2. Oxford now has "Beer-sheba, and Sheba", while Cambridge has "Beer-sheba, or Sheba". So, the correct form or edition is the Pure Cambridge Edition.

The editions weren't revisions, they correcting spelling and other printing-press problems.

I would call correcting spelling and printing press problems by editors a "revision", but not the kind of revision that actually changes the work (e.g. underlying text and translation), it is just really things like copy-editing.

Some people think that because the translators didn't say their work was inspired or perfect doen't mean it wasn't.

Yes, but the Word of God was only given once by inspiration, and everything else is copies. We have preservation of the original inspiration in the KJB, not re-inspiration. The people who see the King James Bible as perfect should see it so because of divine providence (the God who is powerful enough to use earthly means to get the Word from what Paul wrote to be chosen and correctly rendered by the KJB translators), not because of some theory that the translators were "inspired" from 1604-1611.

Again I ask, if the KJB isn't God's Word preserved in English, which one of the over 300 English versions is? They all say different things. They can't all be right. I believe the AV1611 has Proven itself over and over again. What the opponents of this belief offer is nothing, because to them, there is no perfect English Bible.

I agree. The KJB is exactly perfect. No exactly jot and tittle perfect Bible exists in any other language or other English Bible, though there are (or have been) many good Bibles around, e.g. TR editions, Geneva, Luther, R-V Spanish, etc. etc.

I believe the KJV is perfect - however, I believe many who read the KJV are ignorant of what the words mean - their understanding is imperfect. However, with Strong's Concordance I have definitions of every single word in my KJV Bible - and those definitions have never contradicted or corrected the KJV. I would rather stick with a Strong's than wing it and think I got all the English figured out and come up with my own wacky made up definitions (and yes, I have seen some people that do this).

[bibleprotector]

I agree with what you have said concerning the KJB and that some people do make up wrong things. However, I disagree concerning having complete reliance in Strong's Concordance, because Strong's is not the authority on defining the meaning of English words, and it does contradict or stray away from the KJB English in several respects, especially by giving meanings other than what the KJB means.

1. Strong's pronunciations of the Hebrew are incorrect. E.g. "jod" is given as "yod". And so 3068 wrongly says "Yehovah".

2. 3070 says that "jireh" means "Jehovah will see (to it)", contradicting the interpretation of Genesis 22:14.

3. 7214, that is, unicorn, is said to mean "a wild bull". Even the LXX interpreters knew that it was "monoceros", one horn, i.e. unicorn of the KJB, not a wild bull.

4. 5959, the word which is in the prophecy about Mary in Isaiah 7:14, could therefore mean "a lass", "damsel, maid, virgin". But it must be "virgin".

5. 5775 is said to be a bird, a creature covered with feathers, etc., and yet even the Oxford English dictionary knows better, and Leviticus 11:19 lists one of the fowls as the bat: which are neither birds nor feathered. Leviticus 11:20 speaks of insects: these fowl are not feathered or birds.

6. 7549. Strong's thinks that firmament should be "expanse", and indicates that the word was only given because the sky apparently looks like an arch, when in reality it is a substantial barrier with firmness.

7. 8476. Badger. Strong's considers it to mean "antelope".

8. I would venture that numerous other examples may be given of such problems in Strong's Hebrew-English definitions.

9. Relying upon today's knowledge of Greek, as exemplified by Strong's, what should "pneuma" be rendered as in Acts 11:12 and 11:28?

10. And many other examples from the Greek, including his false claim that Jesus was speaking Chaldean (Syriack, now called Aramaic) at Mark 7:34, 15:34, etc., read John 19:17 and Acts 1:19 especially, and see what Strong's says about the proper Hebrew there. (He does not believe that the KJB is right to use the word "Hebrew".)

Strong's is clearly not an infallible authority, and numerous times imperfect or wrong.

Moreover, we cannot be certain that Strong used the correct underlying text word at every place, that is, the word he is presenting in the original language.

And we can be certain that Strong did not use a Cambridge Edition of the KJB, though this has no bearing on the underlying issues.

We find that the Scripture instructs us how to find the meaning of the words of the Bible, such as Proverbs chapter 1, which says it is in the law (of God), and Psalm 119:99 also shows where we should turn to. Therefore, I let the KJB be right, and Strong's wrong, though there are still uses for Strong's etc. once we have our priorities right. For many at the moment it would be better if they got rid of their Strong's.

[bibleprotector]

Who is giving the jot and tittle exact rendering at Phil. 2:21?

KJB: Jesus Christ

SCRIVENER’S GREEK TR: Christ Jesus

And 1 John 2:23?

KJB: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

SCRIVENER'S GREEK TR (MAIN TEXT): Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father

Better to have an objective dictionary defining the words in my Bible, than have some subjective one - which I have seen happen too many times. You will never convince me not to use an objective source. While I have not yet looked up the examples you have given, some of it seems to be nitpicking. Such as the word almah in Hebrew - it means virgin, it is translated as other various words in English (though all those passages still imply the women were virgins, pure).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Who is giving the jot and tittle exact rendering at Phil. 2:21?

KJB: Jesus Christ

SCRIVENER’S GREEK TR: Christ Jesus

If you know ANYTHING about Greek, you know that it is not the same as English, and word order is not determined by the way the sentence is in Greek, but by the forms of the verbs, etc. So nitpicking that the phrase is backwards in the TR is silly.

[bibleprotector]

What I am really driving at is that there is no ultimately reliable extant presentation of the Bible outside of the King James Bible, and that we must have every jot and tittle correct and every word pure, and everything in its order, (despite allegations of "nitpicking"), because God is holy, pure and perfect, and is powerful enough to be able to ensure that His Word in the Earth is presented exactly properly.

Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "virgin", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

And Philippians 2:21 is definitely, certainly, surely, perfectly "Jesus Christ", and since we now have the exact presentation, we cannot allow any other possibility.

To have the "possibility" view, even "limited possibility", you might be allowing all TR editions, which are all slightly different. Or allow all "good translations", which are all slightly different. Maybe just the King James Bible and its margins, which certainly differ to each other. Or perhaps just King James Bible editions, which do differ in jots and tittles to each other. But in all this, there is not one certain final standard of appeal. Not unless we have one presentation of the King James Bible, witnessed to in multitudes, delivered by God's providence, superintended over by the Holy Ghost, received by believers, and exalted in the time to come.

If “Jesus Christ” could yet be legitimately rendered “Christ Jesus”, this is the same as allowing “virgin” to be changed to “maiden”. Why? Because changing the word order of the Scripture is changing the Word of God as much as the changes of modernists are changes to the truth.

Objective sources are no final standard of appeal: only God’s Word, which is completely the truth. It is according to the logic of faith to start with God’s Word as true, and then examine everything on that basis, and see everything match up, and it authenticate itself, and verify that it is indeed the truth. The opposite approach, which seems plausible, is false, namely, to start from having no truth, and then to find what is most likely true based on some non-absolute truth way of examining, which can never be certain that any of its conclusions are true anyway. This is because faith was lacking from the outset.

If no one minds, I would like to weigh in on this. I believe the KJB is God's Word, infallible and without error. However, I also believe that it is also infallible in other languages, too. True, if any Bible in any other language says and/or means something different than the KJB does in English, then it is not God's Word. I personally believe it is careless to say God preserved the Bible in English only. Don't forget, the KJB has been translated into over 800 other languages itself.