Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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

I could say the same for just about ANY translation of the inspired Greek and Hebrew......

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"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).

Well then according to you God's perfect words never existed until 1611. God's promise to preserve his words in every generation in Ps. 12:6-7 was a lie if your logic be true.

The truth is that the KJV translators were not receiving direct revelation from God as the original writers were. They were TRANSLATING scripture. If they were receiving direct revelation from God like the original writers they wouldn't have needed any manuscripts to translate from. They wasted their time consulting manuscripts if God was speaking to them directly on what to translate. And they wouldn't have included alternate readings in the marginal notes. They collated manuscripts and analyzed the Greek, Hebrew, and other languages to know how and what to translate. When they came to the words "ma genomia", they did not translate them literally because it would have been an awkward rendering in English. Ma genomia is literally "let it not be". But they recognized this was a Greek idiom. And when dealing with idioms you don't translate them literally unless that same idiom exists in the target language. You translate the expression. And in this case the expression was "never, never". And in English the KJV translators determined that the strongest words to convey that expression were "God forbid". End of story. That was the point. But you'll never get it in a million years because you have already crossed the threshold of twisting scripture in order to support your racist ideology of pushing Anglo Culture upon the whole world in order for them to be saved, which is a racist ideology and would never work anyways.

Since the Word of God is settled in English, talking about “ma genomia” is as a barbarian.

Talking about pushing Anglo culture and forcing everyone to denounce their culture and language to learn English is barbarian. In fact it's the same concept as the Nazis. You act as if the KJV translators did no translating from the Greek at all. But unfortunately for you, they did. And by ignoring what the KJV translators actually did, such how they dealt with idiomatic expressions such as ma genomia, you have prohibited yourself from learning from the KJV translators when it comes to proper methodology in translating. Your loss.

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”.

Any student of Greek on the planet will tell you and any Greek lexicon will tell you that the literal translation of the words "ma genomia" is "let it not be", not God forbid. The Greek word for God is "theos" and forbid is "koluo". The fact is that "ma genomia" is an idiomatic expression. And idioms are not to be taken literally. If I say "the NY Mets killed the Atlanta Braves", that is an idiomatic expression not to be taken literally. I am not saying that the Mets literally murdered the Braves. Nobody in their right mind interprets what I said as literal. But you're trying to totally change simple grammar rules (as well as twist scripture) to fit your ideology and its simply not going to work. God forbid is not a literal expression, its an idiomatic expression no matter how much you lie to yourself about it.

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.

Totally irrelevant. You're one of these guys who says anything just to have a response. Nobody said anything about the word of God being "locked up" anywhere.

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.

Your premise is totally faithless. Faith must be built upon the word of God. And you want us to reinterpret the Great Commission and totally disregard the paramaters of Mission work as laid out by the Apostles in the book of Acts. But sorry, it won't work. The word of God still stands. The Great Commission is not to push Anglo-Protestant Culture and teach all nations English. It is to preach the Gospel to every creature. And the Apostles demonstrated the proper way to do this. Not one Apostle went around pushing Hebrew culture or forcing anyone to learn Hebrew. Rather they preached the Gospel in the language of the people they ministered to. What else do you think the business of "speaking in tongues" was all about, unless you are a Charismatic that thinks that speaking in tongues was this jibberish going on today in Pentecostal churches.

Which is exactly why He is the God who is getting one Bible out to the world for tomorrow.

Totally baseless. Not supported by scripture.

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.

Oh so now all of a sudden you are the one who gets to define who is KJBO and who is not. If I don't go along with your plan to dominate the world with Anglo-culture and force everyone and their mother to learn English all of a sudden I'm not a true Bible-believer. You sir, are insane.

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.

And so because I believe we should translate the words of God into other languages I must by lying when I say that I believe the KJV is perfect? You are living in a fantasy world.

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”.

That is EXACTLY what Inspiration is. Whatever God breathes out or upon receives life. God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. The Bible is a living book and it wouldn't be so if the words in that Book were not breathed by God. But why should I waste my time teaching you any Bible. You're to busy wanting us to dominate the world with Anglo-Protestant Culture. (By the way, I'm not a Protestant. I'm a Bible-believing Independent Baptist. And Baptists were never a part of Rome. You can HAVE your Anglo-Protestant culture. I stick with preaching the Gospel.)

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”.

Portions of the OT were written from Aramaic, which is a cognate language to Hebrew. You need to go back and do your homework.

Yes, the KJB should replace even the Gomez Spanish Bible. Even if were to take 120 years, we have to do it.

Again, you are living in ga-ga land if you think the millions of Spanish-speaking people are going to dump their Spanish language and switch to English. There is nothing in the scriptures to support this baloney.

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”?

If they don't, they can. That's what TRANSLATING is all about.

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.

No, with a perfect Bible I see that perfection as a standard for accuracy concerning God's words in other languages. No, I don't have to see the Greek and Hebrew as former things since God has chosen to preserve His words in those languages as well as the English of the KJV. If you believe in translating you would see the value of having other language sources to glean from when dealing with some of the more technical and difficult matters of translating. But you don't, so you have totally blinded yourself to all these 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).

No, you don't. You pray and trust that with God all things are possible. You lean upon the perfect God who gave us His perfect words. The same God that gave us His perfect words exists today and can again override man's human limitations to do whatever He pleases.

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.

Sheer nonsense! The Gospel is not "Anglophone culture" either. But what do you know about the Gospel? You though the Gospel = the Word and tried to use 1 Pet. 1:21-23 to try to prove this error. This shows me that you don't know how to rightly divide God's word in interpret scripture, especially when the Holy Spirit already told you what the Gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

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.

Because for the 100th time, NOT EVERYONE SPEAKS ENGLISH. And many never will.

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.

Oh I see, God has chosen you to determine who is a true KJB believer and who is not. To you, the word of God has been confined to English. If that be true, than the world was without the perfect words of God between 100-1611 AD and Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses on Preservation are a lie.

Here's the facts:

1. When God spoke His words to the original writers, He did not speak in English to the Apostles and Prophets. He spoke in Hebrew and Greek.

2. He promised to preserve these original words, which were given in Hebrew and Greek.

3. Notice he promised to preserve WORDS, not manuscripts, not ink and paper, which accounts for why we do not have the Original Autographs. We don't need them anyways because...

4. God preserved these Inspired words (yes Inspired means God-breathed, if it they aren't God breathed than these words are dead words) by providentially guiding His people (Ps. 78) to tirelessly copy His words over and over again and pass them down from generation to generation.

5. God not only preserved His inspired words through the constant copying of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts but also...

6. ...the TRANSLATING of those original Greek, Hebrew, and yes some Aramaic (do your homework) words into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, Gothic, etc.

7. In 1602-1611, God providentially guided the KJV translators to culminate these different preserved manuscripts into an English translation - the KJV.

8. In the late 1800s, Scrivener took Beza's 5th edition of the Greek NT (TR), which was the primary Greek text used by the KJV translators, and edited it in only 190 place. For these 190 places, he collated 18 different editions of the Textus Receptus to find readings that mirrored the exact wording of the KJV.

9. Therefore, what Scrivener produced was a Greek New Testament that is an exact Greek representation of what the KJV says in English.

In regards to the Hebrew Masoretic text, one only needs to see the articles by Dr. Waite, provided on this website by the Diligent to see the meticulous care of copying God's words in the OT by the orthodox Jews.

My point is that God promised to preserve His words. Today the prominent Bible that He has placed His stamp of approval upon when it comes to perfection is the KJV. But before 1611, those same Inspired, Preserved, Infallible words in other languages (just as God promised - Ps. 12:6-7). And you can see those words represented in Greek in Scrivener's text, and in Hebrew in the Masoretic text. The point is that God did not wait until 1611 to fulfill His promise to preserve his words, because according to Ps. 12:6-7 His promise was to preserve His words in EVERY generation.

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.

No but we have the KJV. Therefore we have a standard to go by. If we stick to the KJV as the guide and standard for translating we can't go wrong.

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”.

I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is...

It is, “What God said, in English”.

We have no record of God ever saying anything in English to anybody. God spoke in Hebrew and Greek, and He providentially guided the KJV translators to translate those words into 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.

I am not a servant to anything but Jesus Christ. You are a servant to a racist agenda - "Anglo-phone culture".

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.

Accurately translating God's words is not usurping anything ESPECIALLY when the KJV is being used as the standard.

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.

No you are implying that preservation stopped with the KJV and that because the KJV is perfect, God cannot use any other language to preserve His words. But this is a flawed logic because by this reasoning you are forced to assume that God's perfect words never existed until the KJV showed up, which makes Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses a lie.

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.

You are formulating a strange doctrine by adding to the word of God with your private interpretations. The Bible does not teach that the Great Commission is to promote Anglo-phone culture and teach English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel.

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.

More wresting of the scripture to fabricate support for your racist agenda.

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.

Chapter and verse.

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.)

Again you are adding to God's word with your private interpretation. The scripture interprets itself. And Paul told you what Isa. 28:11 is a reference to but you are so stuck on a racist agenda of push Anglo-phone culture on the whole world that you insist on adding some extra revelation to what the Holy Spirit through Paul already gave us. That's how heresies are formed.

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.

Sorry but Isa. 28:11 has nothing to do with evangelizing Jews with the KJB.

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?

It does? Where? Chapter and verse. If you are referring to today, than yes there are Gentile efforts to reach Jews with the Gospel. But the Jews are not going to look toward Christ on a national level until the Tribulation (Rev 7, Zech 12, Rev 11).

Why would the Church have a non-Scriptural doctrine to forfeit its responsibility of preaching to the Jews?

You are the one accusing us of forfeiting our responsibility to carry out the Great Commission by not teaching everyone English so they can read the KJV.

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.

Wrong, it is not "our religion" that will convert the Jews. It's the revelation of Jesus Christ through the preaching of Moses, Elijah, their converts (the 144,000) that will convert the Jews eventually on a national level. And all that doesn't take place until the Tribulation. Today's church will not be a part of that since we will not be here during the Tribulation.

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.

English may be the most learned and used secondary language in the world, but there are THOUSANDS of language groups in the world that are not learning English and most of whom never will. Jesus Christ can come back any time now and if He came back tomorrow somehow I doubt very seriously that everyone on earth is going to magically learn English overnight.

That’s a pitiful excuse. We are talking about millions of teachers.

Again, you are living in Disney-land. There are no "millions of teachers" out there trying to convert the world by teaching English and Anglo-phone culture. The Independent Baptist movement right now has little over 4000 Missionaries around the world. And that number is dwindling every day as the days of Apostacy and Apathy before Christ's return grows. Your fantasy of "millions" of English teachers is not happening.

Having one Church speaking on language so fulfilling 1 Cor. 1:10... And Ephesians 4.

More private interpretations.

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.

Great idea, only except IT'S NOT HAPPENING.

True, but now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.

No we're not.

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.

Again, you are living in a dream world if you think the millions of Spanish-speaking people is going to ditch their language. It's just not going to happen. Nor should it.

How can many varying versions, or variations in the TR editions be “foundation”?

I said nothing about varying editions of the TR. Why are you coming out of left field and making stuff up?

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.

Your "supersuccessionary restitution doctrine" has already been proven to be nothing but a private interpretation. You're trying to create something in the scriptures that isn't there.

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.

Even if you was right that there is no perfect Spanish Bible, you are assuming based on one language issue that of the nearly 7000 languages in the world there can be no perfect Bible. And to believe that you have to assume that the scriptures of old were never perfect. And that is a false assumption.

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.

And to the Africans that know English, you can preach and teach the KJB. But guess what? There are millions of other Africans that do not know English. That goes to show that God never intended to perpetuate Livingston's efforts to teach English. What God HAS perpetuated was Livingston's efforts to preach the Gospel, which is still going on today (and not just in English).

[Manny Rodriguez]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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

I never said the Greek and Hebrew was a necessity to interpret the Bible or learn doctrine. So don't put words in my mouth just because you have no real argument to offer. What I did say is that there is nothing wrong if a Bible translator wishes to avail himself of the Greek and Hebrew alongside the KJV in the process of translating.

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.

Accuracy is measured by the KJB. But you are missing the point...

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?

Yes it does but not everything in English can be translated exactly in another language. So the point is that the translator is in his right to avail himself of other language sources. And what better language sources than the Received Texts which were the very foundation of the KJB. But of course, you think the world needs to be dominated with Anglo-Protestant culture and so you are so blinded by a racist agenda that Foreign translations of the Bible is out of the question to you. Well that is why God is calling us to minister to non-English speaking people and not you.

[MC1171611]

"God forbid," translated verbatim into Spanish, wouldn't make any sense. Therefore, since the Bible should at least make linguistic sense in the receptor language, it is simply ignorant to think that forcing the Spanish language to say something that makes no sense to a Spanish-speaking person is going to do any good.

I think I almost fully agree with Hmo. Rodriguez; the KJB translators used dozens of different versions and translations to bring about the Bible, and though they were operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, He still used those different sources. Ignoring any trustworthy source while translating when facing such a difficult barrier as language is foolhardy. In Spanish that's not an issue as God has already provided His word in that language, even before the KJB was finished, but any language being translated into anew must invariably use all sources, and be subject to the direct leading of the Holy Spirit, in order to be considered trustworthy.

Another thing: the Bible is given by inspiration, not inspired. There's a difference there.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

While the conversation is a bit heated, and would be nice to be toned down, there are two factual tweakings I'd like to make.

It is common to call the language of the OT Aramaic (sections in Daniel and Ezra) and the NT texts Syriac (eg. Peshitta and Old Syriac MSS). Even the OT Peshitta I think is called Aramaic while the NT Peshitta is called Syriac. With Aramaic possibly being a subset of Syriac in language theory, the terms do have a lot of overlap.

I'm not saying this necessarily is sensible, but it is scholarly language consensus and has nothing to do with e.g. recognizing the usage of Hebraisti == Hebrew in the NT. I can't see anything wrong with referring to "sections of Daniel and Ezra being in Aramaic" since that is what their Chaldee dialect is often called. Since Aramaic is used today, culturally in some lands as the main language, and by Orthodox Jews in studies and by Eastern Christians in their Bible text, there is no warrant to insist on banishing the word.

As for Scrivener's Greek text being an exact representation of the King James Bible, "exact" is a bit too strong. The Johannine Comma is not a counter-example, as Scrivener's italics was only in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a different work. However I have seen a couple of cases where English King James Bible information may not be in the Greek text. "Almost exact" - fine. The word "exact" is rarely applicable across languages.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

The Johannine Comma is not a counter-example, as Scrivener's italics was only in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a different work.

I have looked up Scrivener's TR, and it has the entire Comma in bold typeface. The bold typeface differs from the normal text in the same way italics is used in his English edition. I can actually see quite a few places where there are bolded words scattered throughout his Greek NT.

[bibleprotector]

Yes it does but not everything in English can be translated exactly in another language.

!?!

If the KJB is perfectly the text (readings) and translation (sense), and the Word of God cannot be perfectly rendered by the above two criteria in other languages, then clearly our long term goal should be to get people to learn English and use the KJB. You certainly are not going to get a perfect text and translation even by using all the sources including the original languages in concert. Since you are going to get an imperfect foreign Bible, why not move toward teaching the natives English and give them the perfect Bible?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I have looked up Scrivener's TR, and it has the entire Comma in bold typeface. The bold typeface differs from the normal text in the same way italics is used in his English edition. I can actually see quite a few places where there are bolded words scattered throughout his Greek NT.

Good to know. That means that the Scrivener Greek TR text does have a clear and definite weakness. One that is probably ignored by those using it as a translation base, yet of import in the overall sense.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[bibleprotector]

In this response, I aim to present things which would be edifying/instructional to the general reader. Note, “KJB” means King James Bible. I do not say “KJV” as though it is only one of many versions in the world to be used. I say “KJB” because I think it is the Bible for everyone in the world.

Well then according to you God's perfect words never existed until 1611. God's promise to preserve his words in every generation in Ps. 12:6-7 was a lie if your logic be true.

God’s perfect Word existed in heaven and in inspiration, and was scattered in many copies, versions and translations, even as we observe today. But there was never a manifestation of one Bible having the perfect text and translation until 1611. Any good copy, version or translation has been because of God’s preservation, and these copies have been sufficient for salvation and Christian doctrine, but they were not 100% text and translation perfect.

You know full well that only half the Bible was on earth when Psalm 12 was written, so you cannot say that God’s perfect Word existed on Earth in the days of King David. The only perfect Word that existed was what had been written to that time. And even if there was a text-perfect single collection of scrolls of the OT, we know that the entire Bible was never perfect in one form until 1611, nor was the single perfect OT library accessible for many years (e.g. after 70 A.D.) Yet we had many faithful copies, wherein were scattered the true readings, which required a process of gathering, as is shown by the Bomberg printing and by Protestant Bibles, and finally by the KJB.

I believe that the Gomez Spanish Bible is Scripture and is part of God’s provision, etc., but I think that the KJB is overtaking and replacing it. And it is really not wise to try and make new foreign versions now, but to shift focus onto having the KJB as international standard (a long term goal, perhaps not immediately viable in many cases).

The truth is that the KJV translators were not receiving direct revelation from God as the original writers were.

Yes, but if they are Christians, they have God’s spirit and they are vessels in His providence. Of course the KJB translators were not inspired, and of course they looked at a mass of evidence.

And they wouldn't have included alternate readings in the marginal notes.

NO NO NO! If you say “alternate” you say that the margin is equal to or as valid as the text. You are saying the KJB as it stands is NOT perfect. No, the margin notes are the chaff. They show rejected readings, other translations, various notes, etc. They are NOT to be used to find the “real meaning”, they are NOT to be used as “Scripture”!

You are assuming that the margin notes render the actual text of the KJB as imperfect. You are allowing that there are other possible and valid translations WHICH STILL PERSIST. I am showing that the last time there was a possible valid English translation outside the KJB was when the Geneva Version was still being used by some poor Christian. That must have been over two centuries ago.

When they came to the words "ma genomia", they did not translate them literally because it would have been an awkward rendering in English. Ma genomia is literally "let it not be".

This is no issue: they translated sense-for-sense (which is usually literal, but not always, as you rightly say).

[quote]translate the expression. And in this case the expression was "never, never".[/[quote]

No that is not the perfect Word of God. That might be a possible translation, but it is imperfect. It also constitutes an error, because if you believe the KJB is perfect, you would not allow “never, never" to be Scripture in English. And you are writing in English using English words here. Persisting in wanting to allow “never, never" as a form of Scripture in English, as though that was what Paul was really (or could be) saying is a dangerous doctrine.

Any student of Greek on the planet will tell you and any Greek lexicon

Christians today are not supposed students of this sort, or consulters of divinations where the meaning of the KJB is undermined because DIFFERENT WORDS than the KJB are used in their definitions, which equals dangerous error. The KJB has the words of God, we do not need other "sources" to undermine and/or confuse the issue.

But you're trying to totally change simple grammar rules

No, abandoning “Greek and Hebrew” mystery doctrine is not changing grammar, it is imposing the correct English as standard over and above the twisting of words and meaning of the original languages as is manifestly done today. We have at our fingertips the perfect English Bible, why would we want or allow the imposing of VARYING meanings of words from “scholars” onto it? By implying that the Greek does not actually say what the KJB says, you are denying the perfection of the KJB. Even if it is by making it a relative argument, like, the KJB translators were just trying to make the best English expression, but someone else will do it differently. To do that is to undermine the perfection of the KJB. “God forbid” is perfect. You cannot have any variation that is as good.

Nobody said anything about the word of God being "locked up" anywhere.

Why do you keep talking about Greek words and then giving English meanings to them which differ to the KJB? Surely the perfect Scripture is in English, not locked up in Greek! (Why consult many sources when the perfection is already finalised in the KJB?)

[quote]all of a sudden I'm not a true Bible-believer[quote]

To be KJB-only means you believe it is a perfect text and that it is a perfect translation. You might believe the Scripture, but it is not “King James Bible only”. If it is not KJBO, then you do not have a final knowledge of every reading, because readings vary between versions, and it cannot be final knowledge of the translation/sense, because any word outside the KJB has a different meaning, and with other languages, many times slight variations in meaning are there because the other language is not identical to English.

That is EXACTLY what Inspiration is.

The Bible does not say that inspiration is “breathed out”, because the term “breathed out” does not appear in the KJB. (I know that "breathed out" is the terminology of someone who attempted to define a Greek word rather than an English one.)

“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job 32:8). Inspiration must mean “spirit in”. God must have put His words through His spirit in the man [see postscript], and the process of writing out the Scripture was by this being present in the penman. This can be seen where the prophet spoke and the scribe wrote, or where the apostle wrote the letter with his own hand. At the end of the inspiration process, the written words were inspired, and the Bible in English retains this nature in its words today.

[quote]I asked: 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?

Answer: If they don't, they can. That's what TRANSLATING is all about.[quote]

Of course no translation is perfect like the KJB is, but the point is that we cannot make another perfect translation. The Gomez has faults. Therefore, it must be better to encourage people to learn English, and to teach them English, so that they can use the perfect KJB.

No, I don't have to see the Greek and Hebrew as former things since God has chosen to preserve His words in those languages as well as the English of the KJV.

1. Who today is using Bible Hebrew or Bible Greek as their first or only language? Answer: NO ONE.

2. Where is the perfect Bible or testament in Hebrew or Greek that has exactly the right readings, and the right meaning associated to words, so that the word for lapwing is not said to be a hoopoe, or the word for Easter is not said to be passover, etc. Answer: NO WHERE.

3. Since the Word of God is perfectly preserved in English, why would God still need to retain the Hebrew and Greek where there is no certain presentation of the perfect Word of God in exact extant form? Answer: NO NEED TO GOD.

4. Why would Christians need Hebrew and Greek for their doctrine, teaching or Bible study (other than to prove that the KJB is right)? Answer: NO NEED TO US.

5. Did God fail to get His word into the language of the Gentiles > English perfectly, so that He has to keep Hebrew and Greek as a failsafe/back up/repository of His “real” Scripture? Answer: NO.

6. Would God be failing His promise if He was preserving the Scripture perfectly in English for the world? Answer: NO.

I said: But you see that it is there 100% in English, right down the very jot and tittle

Reply: No, you don't. You pray and trust that with God all things are possible.

Of course we see that the Word of God is perfectly in English to the jot and tittle, and that Matthew 5:18 is fulfilled by the KJB. If God’s words are not jot and tittle present and correct in the KJB, where ON EARTH are they? Show them to the world! That is exactly why the KJB should grow to go forth to all nations.

You though the Gospel = the Word and tried to use 1 Pet. 1:21-23 to try to prove this error.

“And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25). Is this passage error?

the Gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 in the Word of God? Yes or no?

Is my “the Gospel = the Word” statement error?

NOT EVERYONE SPEAKS ENGLISH. And many never will.

We’ll see. “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22).

If that be true, than the world was without the perfect words of God between 100-1611 AD and Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses on Preservation are a lie.

No, the perfect text and translation is only present in English today. The Word of God is generally available as it has been for centuries in many copies, versions and translations. That is sufficient, but God is one who does perfect works, which means the result of the furnace of earth is a seven-time purified Bible.

When God spoke His words to the original writers, He did not speak in English to the Apostles and Prophets. He spoke in Hebrew and Greek.

They wrote in Hebrew and Greek.

He promised to preserve these original words, which were given in Hebrew and Greek.

No, you are reading the word “original” or “Hebrew and Greek” into Scripture. When Jesus said the jots and tittles would not fail, that means English, not Hebrew and Greek. The word “jot” and the word “tittle” are English words describing English letters and punctuation. Not one chapter and verse limits the Scripture to the originals only. Clearly, you are not KJBO if you believe that the perfection/preservation of Scripture is still locked up in the original languages.

[quote]Notice he promised to preserve WORDS, not manuscripts, not ink and paper, which accounts for why we do not have the Original Autographs. We don't need them anyways because...[quote]

Yes, and we have many translations made, e.g. in the Reformation.

[quote]God preserved these Inspired words ... by providentially guiding His people (Ps. 78) to tirelessly copy His words over and over again and pass them down from generation to generation.[quote]

But there was a point where single manuscripts were not perfect. However, if taken collectively, the perfect Word could be discerned, which was a process which manifested especially between 1517 and 1611. The KJB being supersuccessionary to the Bomberg and TR editions.

In 1602-1611, God providentially guided the KJV translators to culminate these different preserved manuscripts into an English translation - the KJV.

Yes.

In the late 1800s, Scrivener took Beza's 5th edition of the Greek NT (TR), which was the primary Greek text used by the KJV translators, and edited it in only 190 place. For these 190 places, he collated 18 different editions of the Textus Receptus to find readings that mirrored the exact wording of the KJV.

So what.

Therefore, what Scrivener produced was a Greek New Testament that is an exact Greek representation of what the KJV says in English.

It isn’t, but even if it was, why go back to Greek when perfection is already manifest in English? Scrivener’s Greek NT is not going to be the same as the KJB. In fact, if used properly, this TR is only a scholarly apparatus to help prove the superiority of the KJB. The KJB is perfect, whereas Scrivener’s TR is not. What the people of the world need is God’s Word in the global tongue, not Scrivener’s TR or a translation made from it.

the meticulous care of copying God's words in the OT by the orthodox Jews

Which indicates why we can be sure the KJB is correct.

My point is that God promised to preserve His words. Today the prominent Bible that He has placed His stamp of approval upon when it comes to perfection is the KJV.

And now God is advancing the approved KJB to be the one Bible for all the world, because it is perfect.

If we stick to the KJV as the guide and standard for translating we can't go wrong.

Since you admit that learning is not the same today as 1611, and the KJB is best, why not stick with the KJB where you can’t make a mistake, rather than trying to make a translation where you will make many mistakes?!

We have no record of God ever saying anything in English to anybody. God spoke in Hebrew and Greek, and He providentially guided the KJV translators to translate those words into English.

If so, we don’t need Hebrew and Greek any more. And we don’t need to waste our time and resources in pushing other translations either. Can we seriously claim that the Gomez Spanish Bible was “providentially guided”? I know that the makers of it meant well. But we are looking to align with God’s continuing providence, and it is in the line of the KJB for the whole world.

Accurately translating God's words is not usurping anything ESPECIALLY when the KJV is being used as the standard.

Since the KJB is standard, nothing else can be. Therefore the trend of other translations should not continue to be upheld.

[quote]The Bible does not teach that the Great Commission is to promote Anglo-phone culture and teach English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel.[quote]

The Bible does allow for Anglo-Protestantism to be promoted, and using English to preach to the KJB to the world fulfils that part of the great commission. However, nations need to be taught, and this means having a model. Clearly, elements from Anglophone culture are going to be the best to use, while every nation yet retains its own identity. (We are not banning chop sticks because we think cutlary is better.)

I said: this idea is furthered so EVENTUALLY that all nations are taught one Word.

Reply: Chapter and verse.

Plenty, Zeph. 3:9 and Matthew 24:14 just for starters. What is the "pure language"? What is "this Gospel"?

Isa. 28:11 has nothing to do with evangelizing Jews with the KJB.

Really? Are God’s chosen people stuck with an imperfect Hebrew New Testament? And where is a perfect Hebrew OT today? Since many Jews can speak English, it is providential, so that the KJB can be used to preach to them.

I said: Scripture plain{ly} prophesies that it is the GENTILES who are to begin to convert the Jews?

Reply: It does? Where? Chapter and verse.

Today Gentiles should begin reaching the Jews effectively, which will come to finality with the salvation of Israel after the Church has left, see Romans 11:11, Romans 10:19, Romans 11:31, etc.

You are the one accusing us of forfeiting our responsibility to carry out the Great Commission by not teaching everyone English so they can read the KJV.

No. I am saying teaching English furthers and is the way to fulfil the Great Commission.

Wrong, it is not "our religion" that will convert the Jews.

What? If not Christianity, then how will the Jews become Christian? They are supposed to be in the same Body of Christ as we are.

English may be the most learned and used secondary language in the world, but there are THOUSANDS of language groups in the world that are not learning English and most of whom never will. Jesus Christ can come back any time now and if He came back tomorrow somehow I doubt very seriously that everyone on earth is going to magically learn English overnight.

Since English is widely used, we should use the KJB. Since some people do not yet know English, we should teach them, so they can use the KJB too. And Christ may not come for 20, 50, 100 years or whatever, so don’t forfeit our responsibility to make long term plans of world evangelisation as though we are going to fail. We are talking long term, an agenda which begins as a seed today.

And that number is dwindling every day as the days of Apostacy and Apathy before Christ's return grows. Your fantasy of "millions" of English teachers is not happening.

Maybe you haven’t realised, but Christ is about to spue a whole bunch of junk out of His body. And there are many many passages which speak of the last days glory and restitution of the Church before the translation. I am not talking about Dominion Theology, which is an error. I am talking about a powerful, spotless Church with nation-changing Christianity.

The Lord said to pray for labourers, so don’t call the millions of harvesters a “fantasy”. We are entering into the times of restitution. Why let the spirit of antichrist have all the power today?

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.” (James 5:7).

“Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:12).

“And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.” (Rev. 14:16). This is not just a Tribulation prophecy, it is also pre-Tribulation Historicist.

“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19). That standard is the KJB for all nations.

These are just some of the verses showing the “restitution supersuccessionary doctrine”. Having the KJB for all is in line with that.

Great idea, only except IT'S NOT HAPPENING.

1. We walk by faith, not by sight.

2. The Scripture said it generally would happen, and God is not a liar.

3. Specific verses show it, e.g. “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” (Psalm 22:27). Don’t explain away prophecy by saying “in the Millennium”.

I said: now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.

Reply: No we're not.

Er, God is in control, we are on God’s side, therefore we are bringing the world to English so that we (not God for us) can bring the KJB to all.

Even if you was right that there is no perfect Spanish Bible, you are assuming based on one language issue that of the nearly 7000 languages in the world there can be no perfect Bible.

The only perfect text and translation is the KJB. Why rob the world of the perfect Word? Why not get them to learn English and believe the KJB? After all, many already know English.

POSTSCRIPT: I would venture that most foreign translations do not rightly divide between the "spirit" of God and the "Spirit" of God. Furthermore, would the Spanish version specifically be altered in 1 John 5:8 to change "Espíritu" to "espíritu"?

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Good to know. That means that the Scrivener Greek TR text does have a clear and definite weakness. One that is probably ignored by those using it as a translation base, yet of import in the overall sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the 1611 edition of the KJB have the Comma in italics?

Also, I'd be careful with Bro. Gomez' Bible...not only did he incorrectly and somewhat underhandedly use the Reina Valera name to apparently give his Bible more credibility, but he's also changed it multiple times as other Spanish-speaking missionaries and translators found error with it. One instance of error in the RVG (ugh!) is that he changed "salúd" in Psalms to "salvacíon." "Salúd" means "good health" or something along that line, while "salvacíon" means spiritual salvation. While at face value that seems to be a good change, remember that David thought his soul and his body were the same thing, and he had no idea that he needed spiritual "salvacíon." This is a blatant doctrinal error that would have never happened if they had stuck with the 1865 TRUE Reina Valera.