[bibleprotector]

1.) The English, while being birthed by several different languages, was in our King James Authorized Bible adjusted to the Greek and Hebrew by the King’s Translator’s. Hence, there is a Scriptural and spiritual connection between those languages. Not to mention, that there are in my opinion and that of Ruckman, places where the Greek and Hebrew may magnify the English text.

If the English is recognised as so fit, it is because it there has been a full transfer from the original languages. If complete, then why go backwards? Surely, God has been well able to get the full truth out in the Gentiles’ tongue?

2.) There are many today that are taught that the King James Authorized bible is riddled with errors, particularly in regards to the Greek and Hebrew. It is our Job as King James Only’s to dispel these myths by showing that our Translator’s produce a superbly legitimate and accurate English Bible.

The King James Bible has been vindicated numerous times, all the way from the days of the translators to the writings of Burgon, Hills and Holland. More than sufficient vindication has been given. Thus, it is only those who wish to remain ignorant that may do so. Why argue over the same ground, when we have plenty of proof in the Scripture itself, and in observations of providential signals, and in English studies.

3.) Greek and Hebrew were both used by God far longer than the English has and therefore must not be cast aside so easily.

This is a distortion. God has providentially worked for the laying aside Greek and Hebrew by degrees for years, to the point of utterly being for the English Bible around about now in history. Not only is God easily able to cast off one thing, and raise up another, but he is able to do so suddenly if He will. He is the one who can do a short work, to hasten it in the time of one man, and even do strange and terrible things to the confounding of the worldly wise.

4.) If you go to a good English dictionary to look up words found in the Bible you will come across references to Greek and Hebrew.

There are numerous words which have become English because of their presence in the Bible, and not because English comes from Hebrew (as the British Israelites say). The reason why there are references to Greek is to do with knowledge and learning and civilisation, which existed before the Christian religion dominated, and it is a fact that Roman words came to pass to be in Saxon before the English were converted to Christ (or Romanism). To use etymology as an argument to stay with the Greek is like saying that Latin and Old English should be taught at school to better understand the present language. I am sure there are more references to either Latin (via French) or Old English than to Greek in our English language.

5.) So we are not accused of being ignorant backwoods hillbillies.

First, no one should care if they are falsely accused of this, and secondly, being wise in the world's eyes is different to being wise in God's eyes.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

My disagreement with Matthew's view here is that he is giving a one-sided position of convenience, more theoretical than practical.

When we are on a forum and somebody like Rick Norris or some of the posters here falsely claim that the King James Bible has wrongly translated this Greek or that Hebrew or the other Aramaic, many of us will take the time to carefully show the fallacies in the accusation. Readers can note this happening again and again on this forum and I can point it out on other forums as well.

Yet I do not see Matthew objecting to our refutation of the false accusations, showing the improper language claims and pseudo-scholarship that is common from the anti-pure-KJB group. In fact my memory is that Matthew acknowledges and appreciates the refutations of false accusations, which posts are often very complementary to his specialty of the precision and accuracy of the English of the King James Bible.

And if we did not refute the false language accusations there would be left hanging a false impression about the particular verses and words, the errors would not be corrected. It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations, and that demonstration often involves exposing the false aspects of their appeals to the Greek and the Hebrew, or the Aramaic and Latin may come to play.

To make the corrections it is imperative to do a little lexicon checking, sometimes the forums like b-hebrew and b-greek are of solid assistance. Other resources as well, with those skilled in the languages like John Hinton and Thomas Strouse being of assistance.

Yet, writing as above, apparently Matthew would prefer that this playing field be vacated, and the inquiring readers be left with the sense that the King James Bible has made certain errors in translation. Leaving this vacuum I believe would be KJB-defense error.

Shalom,
Steven

[bibleprotector]

It is very proper for believers to direct people to the studies into the Hebrew and Greek which have taken place which have vindicated to KJB, and to continue to utilise such studies (e.g. to read and use Burgon, Hills and Holland).

Also, if people have a proper view, namely, that the Greek and Hebrew may be used as a secondary confirmation to the English Bible, then by all means mention and show it, which would include that things may yet be mentioned.

And if people point out flaws within the modernist's own position, this is certainly a valid way of disproving them. However, this is only in the negative, and if a person is convinced that the King James Bible is accurate on the original languages only, they are not yet truly convinced, as they must actually believe the Scripture itself.

Therefore, without abandoning the fortress of historical vindication of the original language basis of the King James Bible, it would be quite acceptable for King James Bible people to concentrate their focus in the positive aspect of arguing for the rightness of the Scripture based on its self-confirming enduring present form. In other words, to argue on the rightness of the English Bible from the English Bible as a self-confirming argument is greater than having to defend or attack concerning the original languages, which understanding should be preserved.

Clearly, people like Steven Avery, Will Kinney and others who presently continue in mentioning the original language studies in a more consistent regard obviously have a function to maintain a knowledge of these things.

And as things are progressive of God through time, I think that it will become greater and greater known that the truth is fully in the King James Bible, which would rightly diminish the area of "furthering" Greek and Hebrew studies greatly, but for retaining the knowledge and witness that the King James Bible was accurately and fully transferred from the originals.

While I agree there should be a maintenance of a preserved body of knowledge out of history as concerning these matters on the King James Bible side, I also expect that there should be a great consuming onto the other side, so that the whole area would no longer be any battle ground but that there would be a receiving that the King James Bible was right, without great studies having to continue in the Greek and Hebrew to “prove” it. And without great efforts being put forth by the other side what a change there would be, which present methods have been devised of Satan, primarily to attempt to “disprove” the King James Bible, and to keep people from believing the book in their hands, and to keep them thinking in regards to error, thereby keeping them in darkness.

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ... But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” (2 Tim. 3:7, 9).

Greetings bibleprotector-

Well, I guess I lean more toward the position of D.A. Wait and Mr. Cloud at this point!

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[bibleprotector]

I believe there is a Scriptural case to build in favour of converting the Jews and so on not in Hebrew. It says in Isaiah 28:11, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

If a minister of the Gospel is going to the Hebrew or Greek to teach the Scripture, or if their ministry is focusing on the Hebrew and Greek, that would be saying that the Holy Ghost, that is, God, is using the Hebrew and Greek. (And He has for a long time.)

But this prophecy in Isaiah explicitly states that the teaching of the Gospel would not be in the Jews' native tongue, for it says, "another tongue".

Someone might attempt to argue that it was Greek, because the Gospel came in Greek in the New Testament. However, there are several signs that show that Hebrew was the proper tongue (see Acts 1:19), and that even preaching was at times in Hebrew (see Acts 22:2). Moreover, God's speaking to the Jews did not conclude in the Greek language era, and certainly promised conversion of Israel was not accomplished, therefore allowing us to see that the conversion of Israel is yet at hand (see Romans 11:26).

If Protestant believers are to preach to the Jews, would they speak Bible Hebrew? No. Would they speak Bible Greek? No. But they certainly could use English to preach to the Jews. If we take that a step further, one should believe that we shall do so.

Take a look at Zephaniah 3:9, "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."

What is the pure language? It is not modern Hebrew, not modern Greek and not modern English. It cannot be Bible Hebrew in the primary sense, because the prophecy says that the people would be turned to "a pure language", indicating that the language did not yet exist on Earth. It would have to be a language that would be accessible to all God's people, and would be the basis of true unity of true believers. It surely must be the English Bible being spoken of: only the King James Bible language is pure, where every word has its meaning, and every use of language is exactly proper. (Even the places where it says "a house" as opposed to the places where it says "an house" are correct.)

The Word is actually designed to go to the Gentiles. If the world has one language as common, then it fits that the Bible conducive to this global language is set up by God. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4). Unless we have one Bible, how can we with one mouth glorify God? (see Romans 15:6)

Clearly, it is not the reviving of Hebrew, or a Gospel message with delving into the original languages which must go forth: but the preaching of the King James Bible to the Jews and to the world. This is a provoking approach, and completely counter to the "conservationist" view of the world.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I believe there is a Scriptural case to build in favour of converting the Jews and so on not in Hebrew. It says in Isaiah 28:11, "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

If a minister of the Gospel is going to the Hebrew or Greek to teach the Scripture, or if their ministry is focusing on the Hebrew and Greek, that would be saying that the Holy Ghost, that is, God, is using the Hebrew and Greek. (And He has for a long time.)

But this prophecy in Isaiah explicitly states that the teaching of the Gospel would not be in the Jews' native tongue, for it says, "another tongue".

Someone might attempt to argue that it was Greek, because the Gospel came in Greek in the New Testament. However, there are several signs that show that Hebrew was the proper tongue (see Acts 1:19), and that even preaching was at times in Hebrew (see Acts 22:2). Moreover, God's speaking to the Jews did not conclude in the Greek language era, and certainly promised conversion of Israel was not accomplished, therefore allowing us to see that the conversion of Israel is yet at hand (see Romans 11:26).

If Protestant believers are to preach to the Jews, would they speak Bible Hebrew? No. Would they speak Bible Greek? No. But they certainly could use English to preach to the Jews. If we take that a step further, one should believe that we shall do so.

Take a look at Zephaniah 3:9, "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."

What is the pure language? It is not modern Hebrew, not modern Greek and not modern English. It cannot be Bible Hebrew in the primary sense, because the prophecy says that the people would be turned to "a pure language", indicating that the language did not yet exist on Earth. It would have to be a language that would be accessible to all God's people, and would be the basis of true unity of true believers. It surely must be the English Bible being spoken of: only the King James Bible language is pure, where every word has its meaning, and every use of language is exactly proper. (Even the places where it says "a house" as opposed to the places where it says "an house" are correct.)

The Word is actually designed to go to the Gentiles. If the world has one language as common, then it fits that the Bible conducive to this global language is set up by God. "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4). Unless we have one Bible, how can we with one mouth glorify God? (see Romans 15:6)

Clearly, it is not the reviving of Hebrew, or a Gospel message with delving into the original languages which must go forth: but the preaching of the King James Bible to the Jews and to the world. This is a provoking approach, and completely counter to the "conservationist" view of the world.

Interesting indeed! Yet it is here that I must depart from you within the King James Only parameters. The Bible does seem to clearly indicate that every language should have the word of God in their language. To say as Gipp has said before, that a non-English person MUST learn English to have the word of God, goes against the Scriptures on several accounts.

• We are told that the different languages are significant, “ There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” (1Cor. 14:10) So, not one language with all of its distinct sound is insignificant.

• We are told that God is made known by the Scriptures to all nations, “ But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Rom. 16:26) Thus, implying that each should have the Scriptures in their own language.

• We are told that on the day of Pentecost every man heard in his own language, “ And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:4-8). Their were at least 12 languages present on that day and not one person was made to learn another language other than their born.

• We are told that every language will confess to God, “ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”(Rom. 14:11).

• We are told that the Redeemed are from every language, “ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). God is not a respecter of tongues!!!

• We are told that the everlasting gospel will be preached to every language, “ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Rev. 14:6). The clear unequivocal implication is that every tongue will have the gospel preached in its own tongue.

• In Chapter 11 of Genesis we find that the earth is of one language (v.1, 6), however, this was not good. So God, instead of encouraging the use of one language, “ …confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (v.7). Why would God create all the different languages and then want to discard them all (here on earth) for one language? It is a miracle that God’s word is translated into so many different languages.

• We are told that it is better to speak five words of understanding than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, “ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” (1Cor. 14:19).

• We are told that unknown languages no better than a barbarian, “ Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.” (1Cor. 14:11). The Greeks used this word to indicate anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

• We are told that if you cannot interpret an unknown tongue for someone keep silent, “ If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1Cor. 27-28).

• We are told that an un-interpreted tongue is not edifying, “ Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1Cor. 13-17).

What can we learn from all this? It is very simple, 1.) No one is forced, told, or compelled to learn another language in order to know God’s word. 2.) No language is greater (in every way) than the next. Yes, English is superior to Greek to an English speaking person, yet, Greek takes precedence over the English seeing that it pre-existed the English and is where our English bible is translated from. 3.) No non-English speacking person MUST learn English to have the word of God, but the word of God should be translated into their language.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Truth4Today

Interesting ... The Bible does seem to clearly indicate that every language should have the word of God in their language. ... that a non-English person MUST learn English to have the word of God, goes against the Scriptures on several accounts.

It is interesting, and the tone of the discussion I really appreciate.

I said "should learn English", not "must learn English", though I am implying that at some stage it would be must.

From the outset, I agree that the Scripture has historically gone forth in many languages, but that every Scripture quote that says about people saved from all tongues or languages, in the near future (i.e. Restitutional) sense would only apply to their native language, not the global language, which is English. English as a second language is already very common throughout the world.

We are told that the different languages are significant, “ There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.” (1Cor. 14:10) So, not one language with all of its distinct sound is insignificant.

"Signification" does not mean so much "important" as it means "to convey signals by". The quote is talking about the capacity of creatures to communicate, not in any way specifically disallowing one language. (For example, a person facing temptations may hear various “voices”.) It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

We are told that God is made known by the Scriptures to all nations, “ But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:” (Rom. 16:26) Thus, implying that each should have the Scriptures in their own language.

Actually this does not imply that each nation should have the Scripture in their own languages, though the Scripture has gone forth in many languages. In fact, this verse more clearly fits in with the idea that in the future, all nations would have the same Scripture at the same time.

We are told that on the day of Pentecost every man heard in his own language, “ And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:4-8). Their were at least 12 languages present on that day and not one person was made to learn another language other than their born.

If you believe that speaking in tongues have passed away, I could say that the implication that preaching in other languages has passed away. If you notice that the event of Acts 2 is different to the normal practice of tongues in 1 Corinthians, where Paul continually lays out the need for orderly public practice and INTERPRETATION of outspoken tongues.

We are told that every language will confess to God, “ For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”(Rom. 14:11).

Actually, it says "tongue", which along with "knee" must be both literal and symbolic. As for all tongues confessing, this verse is not saying that everyone is going to be saved, and also, that there are many people who have lived, both believers and non-believers, who lived when English was not the global language. However, the Restitutional implication of this verse is that people and languages should at one time in history be all deferring to the Gospel of Christ, though, as I said before, it is not that everyone would be saved. In short, this verse does not prohibit that English or generally one language should be used in the future.

We are told that the Redeemed are from every language, “ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). God is not a respecter of tongues!!!

While it is true that people have been saved of very many nations, and that God is by implication generally no respecter of what language people have spoken (since this verse may be interpreted to apply to all Church history), yet there is an indication that while people come OUT OF various nations, etc., they also come OUT OF various tongues. This could imply an abandoning of various languages for a heaven standard language. But if we apply anything at all to the Millennium, then whatever is the standard Earth language before the Tribulation can well be the one afterwards. Since that is to be English, we find that it is likely that God would use English. But one way or the other cannot really be decided from Revelation 5:9, as it is speaking about the past, that people did believe the Scripture and Gospel in various languages.

We are told that the everlasting gospel will be preached to every language, “ And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,” (Rev. 14:6). The clear unequivocal implication is that every tongue will have the gospel preached in its own tongue.

Actually, this is proof that while the Gospel may come forth in various languages, and the Scripture likewise, that there is ONE GOSPEL, namely, the everlasting one, which symbolised by it being borne of the angel, is singular and universal, and that it would go to all nations and languages. (Notice the word "having" which obviously is a singular possessive.) By this I mean that the strongest indication is that in the future, according to a Restitutional view, a consistent Gospel is preached by the one King James Bible to all nations in English, aided by future developments in communication technology.

In Chapter 11 of Genesis we find that the earth is of one language (v.1, 6), however, this was not good. So God, instead of encouraging the use of one language, “ …confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.” (v.7). Why would God create all the different languages and then want to discard them all (here on earth) for one language? It is a miracle that God’s word is translated into so many different languages.

Actually, it was good that the earth was as one language, what was not good was that man was sinning. Fast forward to out time: people might think that Satan is setting up a one language system for the Antichrist (which is true), BUT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF LANGUAGE. The fact is that today, English is the world's common language. God created all the different languages for a purpose (e.g. to keep nations in their bounds), but He has also set up for one language, namely English, for OUR GOSPEL, that is, for us.

We are told that it is better to speak five words of understanding than ten thousand in an unknown tongue, “ Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.” (1Cor. 14:19).

So, while he never banned speaking in tongues, we should see that if we have the perfect Word in English, and the world is learning it as the global language, put those two things together and the true Church can reach the world.

We are told that unknown languages no better than a barbarian, “ Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.” (1Cor. 14:11). The Greeks used this word to indicate anyone ignorant of the Greek language.

The word "Greek" and the word "barbarian" are English words. And the word barbarian actually referred to culture, which included language (as the verse itself shows).

To argue that "unknown languages [are] no better than a [sic] barbarian" is actually a reason why using English, and the Bible which is exactly true, should be used to bring the Gospel to foreigners.

Therefore, unless the barbarians are turned to English, they will be kept in a low position having only imperfect Bibles or modern versions.

And if the barbarians are they who were ignorant of Greek, by the same application today, those who are ignorant of English are disadvantaged, both naturally and spiritually (notwithstanding how the Holy Ghost has worked and helped all Christians, including English speaking ones who do or did not use the King James Bible).

We are told that if you cannot interpret an unknown tongue for someone keep silent, “ If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1Cor. 27-28).

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, except to, at some stretch, imply that the Word of God in the unknown tongues (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and other languages) should be in the known language. Since the world has English as the global language, this would actually imply that other tongues should keep the silence, for their want of interpretation.

We are told that an un-interpreted tongue is not edifying, “ Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.” (1Cor. 13-17).

Again, this verse shows nothing on the issue, but perhaps that the Word of God should go forth in the known, global language of English, for fruitful understanding.

What can we learn from all this? It is very simple, 1.) No one is forced, told, or compelled to learn another language in order to know God’s word.

Yet prophecy indicates that the Gospel would come in "another tongue", and that the world would hear what Christ called "this Gospel", and that believers should speak with one mouth, and should be perfectly joined together speaking the same thing. Surely, the abundance of Scripture evidence implies that God's Word in the future should be made known to the world and throughout the Church in one language, the Bible English of the King James Bible, and that since God is to turn people to that pure language, surely it is for the unity of the faith, so that people may call upon the true name of God with one consent. Thus, God providentially outworks to bring one common world language for the Gospel, so that there may be an advance in perfection.

2.) No language is greater (in every way) than the next.

"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).

Yes, English is superior to Greek to an English speaking person, yet, Greek takes precedence over the English seeing that it pre-existed the English and is where our English bible is translated from.

This is illogical for three reasons:
1. If no language is greater, then how can Greek take precedence, that is saying that Greek, which is a language, is greater.
2. If pre-existence means superiority, then Latin, Chaldee, and a whole host of other languages, including Basque, Manx and Hottentot must be superior to post-1611 English.
3. If Greek is superior to English in regards to Scripture, this implies that the full truth of the Scripture is actually in the Greek, and that in order to know the full truth, Christians should learn Greek (though they may be saved by the derivative translations), and if God is all powerful and has control of language, He would providentially outwork to turn all nations to the Greek language so that they may receive and know the full and utter truth.
4. The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken. And the Greek of today is different to Greek at the time of Christ.
5. Which Greek Bible is perfect? There is not one settled final TR in Greek.

3.) No non-English speacking person MUST learn English to have the word of God,

Quite true, but then, if the true Gospel is understood by English speaking Christians who know they have the perfect English Bible, and the world is learning English, and their nations are prospering, and the communication technology is in place, would not the signs and the harvest be with the Word of God in English in the future?

If, according to this Restitutional view, the Gospel comes forth in power to the world in English, what should be done now? What should be done is to set everything up, and move in line with the Scripture, and see the signal providences of God, that the future of the Gospel is in English. If English then, what must be the seed to it, but people believing and doing it now.

but the word of God should be translated into their language.

There is no need to translate the Word of God if the world speaks English.

Moreover, the Word of God should NOT be translated now, for deficiency in learning, in understanding the correct form of the Textus Receptus, in learning of the sense of the Scripture, in understanding the full breadth of the English, in other words, it is to doubt that God set up the right men with the right learning using the right language at the right time in history to make the right text and translation of the Scripture that it may rightfully used by us, as is our heritage and destiny.

Sorry for the lateness of my reply.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is interesting, and the tone of the discussion I really appreciate.

I said "should learn English", not "must learn English", though I am implying that at some stage it would be must.

I did not intend to imply that you were claiming the same exact thing as Samuel Gipp; only that the prevalent tone was pointed in that general direction. But, you are not saying that they must learn English, fair enough!

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"Signification" does not mean so much "important" as it means "to convey signals by".

Good thing I never said that the word “Signification” meant “important”. The way I was using it was with regard to meaning. Not one voice (i.e. language) is without meaning. Every one has distinct sounds each with some connotation attached to it. Therefore, all languages have the capacity to convey a message. The context tells us so, for in (1 Cor. 14:8) it tells us, “ For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” I should know this because I served in the Military. Each bugle sound has a different meaning, some mean charge and others commemorate fallen comrades. Each is a valid means of communication.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

I am not saying that English is not an acceptable means of communication or that it cannot be used by God. My argument is simply this, that English is no greater than the Greek or Hebrew in every way and that there is no Scripture suggesting that one language MUST be used to convey God’s word. Now, as far as the Jews being converted by other tongues, I am not sure of this understanding. Particularly the verse in Isaiah 28:11.

This verse in Isaiah is not in reference to the gospel at all, let alone it being presented in the English dialect. Immediately, this verse is dealing with the Assyrians and their tongue. The people had erred through strong drink and both the priest and prophet had shared in the debauchery (v.7). The nation as a whole was so sinful, that they were living in there own filthiness and the vomit of their own corruption (v. 8). Some believe that (v. 9) is what the harden leaders spoke and others say that Isaiah was inquiring here. Whatever the case, the people were apparently sick of hearing Isaiah’s prophecies and grumbling about their echoic message (v. 10). Therefore, God is going to cause them to fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken (v. 13) by using stammering lips and another tongue (v.11). That is to say, that the word of God would discipline in the form of strangers with stammering lips to teach that which should have been learned from God in their own tongue. In this case it would immediately be the Assyrians and their tongue that took place when they invaded in 721 B.C.. This strange language would be the sign of God’s judgment not deliverance. So, to insert English here is nothing but conjecture. Moreover, to say this speaks of the conversation of the Jews is unfounded. It certainly is more akin to stumbling and blindness.

Paul the apostle make a clear reference to this verse in (1 Cor. 14:21). The point is that they are a sign to those that believe not (v. 22). Why, to ratify them in their noncompliance and unbelief so that they will continue all the more in unbelief.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually this does not imply that each nation should have the Scripture in their own languages, though the Scripture has gone forth in many languages. In fact, this verse more clearly fits in with the idea that in the future, all nations would have the same Scripture at the same time.

Why Not? It specifically says, “…made known to all nations”, now is this relating to all nations in their mother tongue or to all nations in a universal tongue. Mother tongue is a more natural and befitting understanding.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If you believe that speaking in tongues have passed away, I could say that the implication that preaching in other languages has passed away.

I believe you missed my point. Whether or not tongues are for today is a non-issue here. The point I was making was this, that here we have an example where God used some 12 different languages to communicate to men in their own language. This clearly suggest that we should convey God’s word to men in their mother tongue.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If you notice that the event of Acts 2 is different to the normal practice of tongues in 1 Corinthians, where Paul continually lays out the need for orderly public practice and INTERPRETATION of outspoken tongues.

I am not saying that they are the same. This also is a non-issue here.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually, it says "tongue", which along with "knee" must be both literal and symbolic.

I do see where you are partially going with this. But I must disagree! Yes, the word “tongue” is being used with the word “knee”, thus, suggesting in one sense that it means a body part. Yet, it is within the context of confession and is proceeded by the word “every”. Therefore, if every tongue will confess, then every language must also be confessing. Otherwise, you have folk that have passed on already that did not have the privilege of experiencing some universal language and will not be confessing. See also (Phil. 2:11). The word “tongue” is being used as a synecdoche, where a part is used to represent the whole. In this case, the tongue represents the speech or language produced by the tongue. Does this not bring more glory to God, that each and every dialect to ever exit would bow and confess to the one and only true God?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

As for all tongues confessing, this verse is not saying that everyone is going to be saved…

This is not what our discussion is about. However, just for the record, I do not believe in universalism. Every person one day will confess the truth, but not all will confess to salvation. Many in this life that deny that Jesus is Lord, will after they die know the truth of Christ. Howbeit, too late! (Heb. 9:27) “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:”

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

While it is true that people have been saved of very many nations, and that God is by implication generally no respecter of what language people have spoken (since this verse may be interpreted to apply to all Church history), yet there is an indication that while people come OUT OF various nations, etc., they also come OUT OF various tongues. This could imply an abandoning of various languages for a heaven standard language.

The text does not say that English is the heavenly language. I know people that would claim that Hebrew is going to be the heavenly language. But, if you want my opinion, there may be no heavenly language. All people will probably speak what ever language they spoke here on earth, although, we all will understand each language (see 1Cor. 13:8-12). Now this does not prohibit the possibility of a unified language existing in the millennial kingdom. I could be wrong here and will stand corrected.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually, this is proof that while the Gospel may come forth in various languages, and the Scripture likewise, that there is ONE GOSPEL, namely, the everlasting one, which symbolised by it being borne of the angel, is singular and universal, and that it would go to all nations and languages. (Notice the word "having" which obviously is a singular possessive.) By this I mean that the strongest indication is that in the future, according to a Restitutional view, a consistent Gospel is preached by the one King James Bible to all nations in English, aided by future developments in communication technology.

I agree that there is one Gospel! But there are many languages. Notice that it is “…preach…to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” how much clearer do you need it to be spelled out? Furthermore, how does dialect change the Gospel?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually, it was good that the earth was as one language, what was not good was that man was sinning. Fast forward to out time: people might think that Satan is setting up a one language system for the Antichrist (which is true), BUT GOD IS IN CONTROL OF LANGUAGE. The fact is that today, English is the world's common language. God created all the different languages for a purpose (e.g. to keep nations in their bounds), but He has also set up for one language, namely English, for OUR GOSPEL, that is, for us.

My point was that God created the languages, therefore all languages are from God and are good. So, all languages are valid, one is neither grater or lesser in every way. In a fallen world, one unified language will do nothing more than unite men in sin. Not saying that any good cannot come out of it, but simply more harm than good will be done. In a perfect environment such as the millennial kingdom, a unified dialect would benefit.

Besides, are we to assume that God, who created all languages, does not understand them all or that He could not use them all to His glory? Can God only use effectively only a certain language? God used Hebrew and Greek very effectively. Are we to ASSUME that a non-English speaking person cannot receive or have access to the fullness of God in Christ?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

So, while he never banned speaking in tongues, we should see that if we have the perfect Word in English, and the world is learning it as the global language, put those two things together and the true Church can reach the world.

I do agree with you that Paul never banned the speaking in tongues. Again, my point was this, that we communicate in the language that a person understands. Speaking in an unknown tongue (like English is to many) is to be avoided.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

To argue that "unknown languages [are] no better than a [sic] barbarian" is actually a reason why using English, and the Bible which is exactly true, should be used to bring the Gospel to foreigners.

I must not be following. If speaking English to a non-English speaking person makes us a barbarian to them and them to us then we should not speak or use English with them.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

And if the barbarians are they who were ignorant of Greek, by the same application today, those who are ignorant of English are disadvantaged, both naturally and spiritually (notwithstanding how the Holy Ghost has worked and helped all Christians, including English speaking ones who do or did not use the King James Bible).

I did not mean that none-Greek speaking people were barbarians in an inferior sense. Paul uses the term “barbarian” of himself and the one in whom he is conversing with (1Cor. 14:19).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, except to, at some stretch, imply that the Word of God in the unknown tongues (e.g. Hebrew, Greek and other languages) should be in the known language. Since the world has English as the global language, this would actually imply that other tongues should keep the silence, for their want of interpretation.

Once again, you missed my point. The key word here in these verses is “interpreter”. In practically ever case this word is used in the New Testament it means “translation”. So, if we do not have a translator we are to keep silent. Therefore, if you go on a mission trip and are in the presents of non-English speaking people with out an interpreter then you should keep silent!

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Again, this verse shows nothing on the issue, but perhaps that the Word of God should go forth in the known, global language of English, for fruitful understanding.

How will English bring fruitful understanding to a non-English speaking person? The point I was making is that an un-interpreted (i.e. un-translated) tongue is not edifying and will not edify a person whom speaks no English. We must according to chapter 14 of first Corinthians TRANSLATE a tongue into the language of the person we want to edify.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Yet prophecy indicates that the Gospel would come in "another tongue", and that the world would hear what Christ called "this Gospel", and that believers should speak with one mouth, and should be perfectly joined together speaking the same thing. Surely, the abundance of Scripture evidence implies that God's Word in the future should be made known to the world and throughout the Church in one language, the Bible English of the King James Bible, and that since God is to turn people to that pure language, surely it is for the unity of the faith, so that people may call upon the true name of God with one consent. Thus, God providentially outworks to bring one common world language for the Gospel, so that there may be an advance in perfection.

Speaking the same thing or presenting the same Gospel is not the same as speaking or presenting it in one language. I have explained the need for one Bible and what I mean here. See A Man With One Watch Knows What Time It Is; A Man With Two Is Never Quite Sure.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

"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).

This is an intriguing verse indeed. I cannot say I fully understand this verse, yet I can tell you what I do understand. The question here is this: Is this verse speaking (no pun intended) of a future universal language that all will speak or is it concerning the cleansing of the unclean lips of the people? If it is the former, then many commentators believe that it will probably take place in the millennium and that it most likely will be the Hebrew tongue. In fact, I read somewhere that there are no swear words in Hebrew and have not come across any as of yet (please correct me if I am wrong). If the latter, then it is not dealing with any one language other than Hebrew and the idea that God will clean up the unclean lips of (Isaiah 6:5). Either way, you are the first I have heard apply this verse to the English language. Just because the English language is predominate does not mean that it is the language referenced in this verse. Otherwise, the Greek language would have been the language of this verse. Of course, you might retort that it fell from predominate use thus showing that it was not the language referenced. However, how do we know for sure that English will never fall from predominate used? What bible verse tells us this? To insert English into the text here is pure speculation. Even to say that English is one stage or step toward this pure dialect is speculative. You have the right to speculate and I have the right to disagree with your speculations.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

This is illogical for three reasons:
1. If no language is greater, then how can Greek take precedence, that is saying that Greek, which is a language, is greater.

I said that no language is greater IN EVERY WAY! There are ways in which a language can be greater than another. One deals with the audience’s mother tongue. The mother tongue of any people, always trumps any other language.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

3. If Greek is superior to English in regards to Scripture, this implies that the full truth of the Scripture is actually in the Greek…

Amen! That is right! The God sanctioned Greek and Hebrew Text do contain the FULL truth of the Scripture. Although, so does the English!!!!

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

…in order to know the full truth, Christians should learn Greek (though they may be saved by the derivative translations), and if God is all powerful and has control of language, He would providentially outwork to turn all nations to the Greek language so that they may receive and know the full and utter truth.

Pure exaggeration! No English speaking person need learn Greek or Hebrew just as no non-English speaking person needs to know English in order to have the full and utter truth. So why should we go to Greek and Hebrew? To magnify the English? Yes! To gain word pictures? Yes! To demonstrate that the King James Authorized Bible is right? Yes! No to mention that it does make sense that those in battle for the King James Authorized Bible should know something about the Greek and Hebrew.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

4. The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken. And the Greek of today is different to Greek at the time of Christ.

The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken ay? So no first century Christian spoke New Testament Greek? What about those that read the New Testament letters out loud (see Rev. 1:3). You do know that the first century was plagued by illiteracy. Many in and out of the Church could not read, consequently, one person would read the New Testament letters while the others listened.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

5. Which Greek Bible is perfect? There is not one settled final TR in Greek.

Yes, there are different editions of the TR, but over 90% (I would say some 99%) is without dispute and is perfect. In fact, most of the variations in the editions of the TR are no different from the variations in the editions of the King James Authorized Bible (i.e. punctuation & spelling). Which edition is the settled one? Fredrick Scriveners Text is just fine! Remember that it was his job to determine the exact text used by the King James Translator’s. I would say his text is prefect.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Quite true, but then, if the true Gospel is understood by English speaking Christians who know they have the perfect English Bible, and the world is learning English, and their nations are prospering, and the communication technology is in place, would not the signs and the harvest be with the Word of God in English in the future?

Yes, for English speaking people. Obviously, if they are speaking English, they are English speaking people.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

If, according to this Restitutional view, the Gospel comes forth in power to the world in English, what should be done now? What should be done is to set everything up, and move in line with the Scripture, and see the signal providences of God, that the future of the Gospel is in English. If English then, what must be the seed to it, but people believing and doing it now.

The operative word here is “IF”. Again you are entitled to your speculations just as I am mine--see The Garden (Paradise) Restored.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

There is no need to translate the Word of God if the world speaks English.

Yes, “IF” the whole world spoke English. The problem is that the WHOLE world does not speak English. In general, I would agree, but in particular I do not. I know several people that have been over seas (including myself in Iraq serving my country, and my wife in Jamaica on a mission trip) and many in these countries do not speak English. For example, when I was in Iraq I HAD TO LEARN (not them) some Arabic just to communicate with many of them. There are some 6 billion people in the world and G. A. Riplinger says (in Awe Of Thy Word that the English of our King James Authorized Bible can reach some 2 billion. That means that some 4 billion do not know or speak English.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Moreover, the Word of God should NOT be translated now, for deficiency in learning, in understanding the correct form of the Textus Receptus, in learning of the sense of the Scripture, in understanding the full breadth of the English, in other words, it is to doubt that God set up the right men with the right learning using the right language at the right time in history to make the right text and translation of the Scripture that it may rightfully used by us, as is our heritage and destiny.

Yes, it should not be translated into English, for we have enough English Bibles and more importantly we have the best & most accurate English bible there is or possibly will be. In the words of M.R. Dehaan, a physician who later became a pastor and original head of RBC Ministries:

Why is all this confusion of tongues limited almost wholly to the English Bible? Other translations in other languages have evidently not needed countless revisions, versions and perversions, translations and dislocations which we poor, ignorant, stupid, English-speaking morons need. It is quite an insult to our meager intelligence that after several hundred attempts to simplify the translation of the Bible we have not yet been able to produce one simple enough for our infantile, English-trained minds to grasp. (Bible Versions and Perversions, Radio Bible Class. Grand Rapids: MI, 1962 p. 12)

Please, if you could, OUTLINE, what criteria is to be used to determine what language will be the unified language that the Gospel or for that matter any part of the word of God will go forth into and unto the World as a whole.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[bibleprotector]

Not one voice (i.e. language) is without meaning. Every one has distinct sounds each with some connotation attached to it. Therefore, all languages have the capacity to convey a message.

True, but some are more fit than others for the Word’s sake. God chose Hebrew and He chose Greek. Some languages are simple, some are complex. The English language has been providentially chosen because already from the earliest times Christian words were brought into English IN ANTICIPATION of God’s later use of that language, and again, the unique melding of the Anglo-Saxon structure (“bone house”) with the fleshing out of French wordings, giving us a connexion into the Latin and Greek. Moreover, the creation of certain words when no English words existed for Bible words, thus, we have “passover” and “atonement”.

Here is my quote corrected, sorry for the confusion: “It is teaching about speaking in tongues: speaking in tongues alone is *NOT* going to convert the Jews or the world today. So, the preaching of the Gospel by them who speak English who also have the "stammering lips" must be acceptable.

Isaiah 28:11 is talking about the Gospel. First of all, it is a wholly erroneous approach to limit a Scripture’s meaning to mere context, aegis and contemporary culture. And it is talking about the Gospel, because Paul applied it so in 1 Cor. 14:21, where he specifically lays out that both the New Testament Church and the Gentile Christians would be witnesses to the Jews, therefore, Isaiah 28:11 must be speaking about the Gospel.

Why Not? It specifically says, “…made known to all nations”, now is this relating to all nations in their mother tongue or to all nations in a universal tongue. Mother tongue is a more natural and befitting understanding.

ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN TO >>> MANY NATIONS
You interpret
ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN TO >>> (in many languages) MANY NATIONS
I have shown that it is also consistent to have, according to prophecies of the future,
ONE CENTRAL IDEA >>> MADE KNOWN (in one language) TO >>> MANY NATIONS

Therefore, if every tongue will confess, then every language must also be confessing. Otherwise, you have folk that have passed on already that did not have the privilege of experiencing some universal language and will not be confessing. See also (Phil. 2:11). The word “tongue” is being used as a synecdoche, where a part is used to represent the whole. In this case, the tongue represents the speech or language produced by the tongue. Does this not bring more glory to God, that each and every dialect to ever exit would bow and confess to the one and only true God?

While I agree that many people of the past would confess in whatever pre- or non-English language at the final judgment, but if applied generally to future history of the world, you are assuming that people will not all know English. How can you be certain that English will NOT be the universal language of the future? I mean, if every indication is now that it is the global language, and it does not contradict the Scripture that there is one primary language for God’s Word in the future.

Now this does not prohibit the possibility of a unified language existing in the millennial kingdom. I could be wrong here and will stand corrected.

I believe that there would be one major common language for the Millennium, which is why I think there would be one Bible used as standard and common, the KJB. If then, would not it already be made so to a very high degree before the tribulation?

Notice that it is “…preach…to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” how much clearer do you need it to be spelled out?

1. It is not denying the idea of having one Bible in one language.
2. That the preaching to various tongues is a category, that is, the “Spanish” group, etc., and not necessarily requiring that the Gospel be given in that language, though historically it was, and at present it would be as yet for a little while.
3. That one Gospel from one Bible in one language can also be the basis for subordinate Christian things yet being in other languages of the world, but the conformity or standard is to the true English Gospel. (I am speaking now about the future Restitutional phase of the Gospel — same Gospel, but widely and highly revealed.)

My point was that God created the languages, therefore all languages are from God and are good. So, all languages are valid, one is neither grater or lesser in every way. In a fallen world, one unified language will do nothing more than unite men in sin. Not saying that any good cannot come out of it, but simply more harm than good will be done. In a perfect environment such as the millennial kingdom, a unified dialect would benefit.

God made languages, yet he chose to speak in Hebrew and in Greek. Now, we also know that He has had the Gospel turned into many languages. Yet various languages are either greater or lesser, simply because there are angel’s languages and there are human languages, and there are some human languages which are little and some which are large, there are some which are “low” and hardly used by the Gospel, and some which are well developed for the Gospel. It “happens” that English is the best.

Besides, are we to assume that God, who created all languages, does not understand them all or that He could not use them all to His glory? Can God only use effectively only a certain language? God used Hebrew and Greek very effectively. Are we to ASSUME that a non-English speaking person cannot receive or have access to the fullness of God in Christ?

“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.” (Zeph. 3:9). God is definitely saying there is ONE PURE LANGUAGE. If people are turned from Hebrew to speak it, and the Jews haven’t been converted yet, it cannot be Bible Greek, so it must be King James Bible English. And we must assume that the fulness of knowledge is there then in Bible English, and would have to be accessed by those who know English. Now we know the perfection of God and revelation is avialable for all, yet the fullness that is avialable for the Church BEFORE the tribulation would have to be in our Gospel. If not ours, then where?

Again, my point was this, that we communicate in the language that a person understands. Speaking in an unknown tongue (like English is to many) is to be avoided.

Again, it is wrongly assumed that in the future, English will yet be foreign to most. On the reasonable interpretation of all present trends, English is going to be known world wide. Therefore it is wrong to think that English is unknown. Since this is the case, you should do what you may to encourage and incite English speaking and preparation for the knowledge of the King James Bible and the true Gospel. (This is to act within the guidelines of providence, as Hills did, to create or keep an environment yet alive for the continuation of the KJB when things were less known.)

If speaking English to a non-English speaking person makes us a barbarian to them and them to us then we should not speak or use English with them.

But English is already the global language and the King James Bible is already really the best. Therefore, English should be, as much as it may be, universal, and the King James Bible, as much as it may be, considered to be the final form of the Word, and accepted for its complete perfection. Thus, no one would have to resort to foreign Bible, and delving into the Hebrew and Greek would have been forgotten.

Paul uses the term “barbarian” of himself and the one in whom he is conversing with (1Cor. 14:19).

That is a good point. I am talking about a future where no true Christian is a barbarian (i.e. speaking strangely) to any other, no matter what “tongue” category they are of, for the common acknowledgement and ownership of the King James Bible, and a common acceptance and understanding of it.

“interpreter”. In practically ever case this word is used in the New Testament it means “translation”.

Incorrect. Interpretation means “giving the sense of”, including rendering ideas in a simpler, expounded or reordered form, etc. If you notice, three people could speak in tongues, and only one interpret, which could include condensing, expanding or re-rendering. It is not merely sense for sense like the King James Bible is as an exact translation.

Therefore, if you go on a mission trip and are in the presents of non-English speaking people with out an interpreter then you should keep silent!

True that foreignese is not going to edify people who don’t know that language, though the verse specially is talking about tongues (unknown), not known languages to the speaker, nevertheless, if the foreigners knew English, we could not classify English as unedifying.

How will English bring fruitful understanding to a non-English speaking person?

This is the wrong question. The question should be, How will English-speaking preaching of the pure King James Bible language be anything but the most bountiful thing for the people of other nations who also hold English as a global tongue? And, in the Restitution of the Gospel, why would those who do not yet not know English resist every avenue being made to them of getting the Gospel and pure Word, especially because the signs of the pure Word are shown forth to them and to the world?

Speaking the same thing or presenting the same Gospel is not the same as speaking or presenting it in one language.

Ultimately, speaking one Gospel and with one mouth and the same thing is at least the BEST to be occurring in one language, if the best in theory, why not is practice, especially when prophecy indicates this?

Concerning: "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). A person cannot disagree with me, and call why interpretation mere speculation when they do not themselves know what the verse means. How could they be certain that I am wrong? That is illogical.

So why should we go to Greek and Hebrew? To magnify the English? Yes!

If so, then the English would be seen as superior and present and full and perfect WITHOUT need for recourse to the Hebrew and Greek. Yet, there is no true magnification of the English while it is put on crutches or stilts to the original languages. The authority of the English Bible is not derivative, it is cumulative, that is, supersucessionary.

To gain word pictures? Yes!

NO! The full force of the meaning, the full sense, the exact message is in English, it is either idle fancy or else deception to run over to some “illustrative” formation of the Greek wording, or to wonder at how they tingled the ears of the original audience, and to find how refreshing the hidden meanings are, which meanings must be ascertained as a form of magic. Are not the words of the KJB accurate and exact? Are not the subtle differences between things like “glittering” and “glistering” worlds apart in meaning, full of majesty, exactness, accuracy, life, vigour, comeliness and every other virtue of truth?

To demonstrate that the King James Authorized Bible is right? Yes!

The King James Bible is the authority, whereby all studies and delvings into the Hebrew and Greek may be judged. How often such adventures must be judged as wanting, foolish, even devilish. Instead of showing the correctness of the English, and perhaps showing how it came about that way (as we might find in Burgon, Hills and Holland), we instead hear of the importance of the original languages: something which is laughable, for that all the truth is at hand, the Holy Ghost standing by, that we might have nothing wanting, nothing deficient, nothing yet to be fished, dredged or scouted out of the Greek or Hebrew labyrinths.

No to mention that it does make sense that those in battle for the King James Authorized Bible should know something about the Greek and Hebrew.

As if it is required for God’s children today to know Bible Greek or Bible Hebrew. If so, the Holy Ghost has singularly failed at provisioning the Church or the world with a broad and general knowledge of these things, and has failed to show any finality or complete certainty in such matters. What a weak God we would serve. But and if, if we, or yet a man in any nation, can turn in one and the selfsame book, and be filled with the secret knowledge of eternal life in befitting words made public: how great a sign is this!

The Greek language the Bible was written in was never spoken ay?

Yes. Of course the God “spoke” it, and where direct speech is recorded, or where a letter was obviously dictated, men spoke the words, but as far as the grammar and usage of the New Testament words being “ordinary Greek”, NO, we are witnessing God’s use of written Greek, and that rendered in English, which is also not “ordinary English”, but God’s providential use of English for His Word, otherwise known as Biblical English.

Therefore, there was “Greek” and there was “Bible Greek”, just as we today have “English” and “Bible English”. It is obvious that the English of the Bible is different to the normal written and spoken English of men.

Scriveners Text is just fine! Remember that it was his job to determine the exact text used by the King James Translator’s. I would say his text is prefect.

Even though he only conjectured what the translators used, and limited himself to the Greek, and even changed things in his Greek to the KJB. His text contains errors, because a few of his wordings do not match the KJB.

There can be only one final standard. It is not in Greek. It is the English Bible. Clearly, the King James Bible is the final version text (none perfectly exists in Greek), and it is an exact translation (no commentator/interpreter/lexicon/etc. today is fully agreeing).

For example, when I was in Iraq I HAD TO LEARN (not them) some Arabic just to communicate with many of them.

This describes a past, imperfect, non-Gospel and less developed situation. It cannot be applied to the future, to greater perfection of knowledge, to specific work of the Gospel or to the greater outworking of providence in this regard.

That means that some 4 billion do not know or speak English.

Is not God at work? Is He too weak? We are looking at the fulfilment of prophecy, as yet to sight unfulfilled.

Please, if you could, OUTLINE, what criteria is to be used to determine what language will be the unified language that the Gospel or for that matter any part of the word of God will go forth into and unto the World as a whole.

I will endeavour to gather a few arbitrary points without presenting a thorough or even fully ordered view of the subject at hand:

Three areas:
A. The past, what does history show?
B. The present, what does providence show?
C. The future, what does prophecy show?

In regards to seven areas:
1. The Word
2. The Church
3. Language
4. Nations
5. Communication technology
6. Harvest

1. A. The best Bible was the AV, above all others
1. B. The AV can be shown to be final, supersuccessionary to the originals, other translations and other English Bibles
1. C. That only ONE book is common, implied by Isaiah 34:16, Psalm 40, etc.

2. A. The English Church was the best out of the Reformation
2. B. The highest attainment and most of the remnant is in English-speaking nations with the greatest understanding
2. C. That there is to be a unified body of true believers in the future, see John 17:21-23, Eph. 4:13, etc.

3. A. That the English language has been used very widely in Bible printing and missionary endeavour
3. B. That the English language is now global, and the King James Bible very widely known and accessible
3. C. That “another” “pure” language is to be used, as shown in Isaiah 28:11 and Zeph. 3:9, this cannot be Bible Hebrew, because it must be another, turned from it, it cannot be Bible Greek, because the Jews were not converted by it, and there is no “pure” OT in Greek, and it must have not yet come to pass the fulfilment of the prophecy, because then the Jews would have been converted, and the name of God revealed, as yet uncertain to many: but there is one Bible and one Gospel which is prepared for them, though they have rejected it, and there would always be some rejection until the tribulation, when the Jews would finally fully be converted. Therefore, it must be before the tribulation that this “other” tongue exists, which is the one which must be common, and give them and the world access to the true Word, which is of course English, and for the purpose of the final and true and pure Bible. (The KJB is better than any Bible ever, because even the originals were not all in one volume together.)

4. A. That England, America and British Commonwealth nations have been the primary and best vessels of God for the Gospel in history
4. B. That at present the highest forms of Christianity are in the English-speaking nations of the USA and the UK, passing over into Australia and New Zealand, and also into many nations and the world
4. C. That God would yet use certain nations for the Gospel, as he said, “from the uttermost part of the earth”, “from the ends of the earth”, see also Matthew 21:43, Rom. 10:19, etc.

5. A. That the printing press was utilised for the Gospel and Word in Britain in abundance
5. B. That the internet, which is largely English, has many copies of the KJB, including knowledge of the pure edition
5. C. That one Bible is standard and ensign for all, see Ps. 68:11, Is. 18:3, Is. 59:19, etc.

6. A. That God has ever worked according to the binding together of these five principles towards certain ends, e.g. the KJB in Britain, speaking English, preaching aboard, reaching many and having great blessings and revivals, from the Reformation until the twentieth century.
6. B. That likewise, in the USA we note that the KJB is present, as may be witnessed with the present signs, such as internet development, etc.
6. C. That the Gospel must come forth in power, and that the vehicles for the historical antichrist be consumed, such as, the prestige of Romanism, the Northern Confederacy of Russia-Islam, and the false versions etc., that there is a spewing out of Christ of the lukewarm, that there is a manifestation of God’s vindication of His name JEHOVAH according to what are actually the pure Words, see Proverbs 30:5, 6, (i.e. the KJB) and also, that the whole area of modern versions be exposed as false idols and utter foolishness in the eyes of the world. Thus, that the Gospel going forth would be the continuation of the historical and present trends, which would indeed be in English, since that is both the global language and fairly common among Jews today. This is shown in the parable of the mustard tree, Revelation 14, etc. etc.

Finally, I might add some explanation for the Isaiah 28:11, Zeph. 3:9 in regards to Is. 52:7 and Deut. 32:21, etc. namely, how the last days conversion of the Jews is begun. It is evident that the Gospel must come to them in conjuction with the defeat of the Northern Confederacy, after which God's spirit should be present for the Jews, and that there would be a movement to bring the fulness of the Gentiles in (see Rom. 11:25) which should be preceded by the signs of great blessing for the Christians (see Rom. 11:12), that the Jews may believe by and with us (see Romans 11:31). After the Church is in this period of "latter days glory", there is the translation of the saints. Then the conversion of the Jews is finalised after the departing of the Bride, but it was begun beforehand. This is a very brief explanation of the "times of restitution", which is the doctrine of the mystery, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" (Col. 1:28), that is, that the Gospel in English should reach every man by us, who speak English, and it is us, because we have the perfect book, and all the other things provided, including the English language itself.

bibleprotector

I will be away for a few days and so I shall not be posting within that time period. I do promise to read your post being very careful to read it context. For I do not want to take you out of context just as I do not want to take any portion of the Bible out of context. I will reply in a few days!

__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)