[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

My goal here will be to make a point, yet not rehash a discusions already hashed.

Those most active in King James Bible defense will use many tools at hand. Many will be historic. I like to show the Reformation Bible perspective and how the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate and led to the pure and perfect King James Bible. And how the modern versions are the scholastically vapid and rebellious attempt to promote some sort of counter-reformation text, which led to the modern version disaster.

Many may be in realms of consistency, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible text. Showing the abject corruptions in the various levels of the counter-reformation texts. Logical, geographical, historical, and other direct errors. Also their lack of internal consistency. And their problems in doctrinal and other realms.

We will also counter the hodge-podge of attacks against the King James Bible. These vary from person to person, some are historical, some are translational, some are anti-Reformation Bible (Textus Receptus), some are English language criticisms and there are many others. Often they are thrown out in the "let's throw out a dozen and see if anything sticks mode" without sincerity from the Bible adversaries. Others are thrown out in the "I don't care that this was already powerfully and cogently answered" mode, reflection the "I will repeat it because my conscience is seared" condition of some adversaries.

To be fair, on rare occasions the questions come forth with some sincerity.

In these attacks we often come across those based on a claim that the King James Bible does not represent the source language texts. Will Kinney could give you dozens of examples of such claims, and they range from vapid to silly to insipid to loony to meshugana to a few that at least are interesting and good studies. (Actually, often even the loony ones lead the Bible believers to good studies, as we learn the word of God more excellently. What was meant for ill is turned to good.)

In our upholding the word of God we will use many tools to disassemble the false attacks. And one of these tools will be showing the inconsistent and erroneous ways in which the opponents have abused source language arguments. In so doing it can be 100% proper to reference the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin aspects. Either our own understanding, or those of others who have helped share on the way.

This is an auxiliary aspect of King James Bible defense. It is by no means necessary for any individual, defender or otherwise, nor is it necessary for those studying to show themselves approved. This type of defense logic and truth is simply a reasonable service of some Bible defenders.

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

My goal here will be to make a point, yet not rehash a discusions already hashed.

Those most active in King James Bible defense will use many tools at hand. Many will be historic. I like to show the Reformation Bible perspective and how the Reformation Bible defeated the Vulgate and led to the pure and perfect King James Bible. And how the modern versions are the scholastically vapid and rebellious attempt to promote some sort of counter-reformation text, which led to the modern version disaster.

Many may be in realms of consistency, inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible text. Showing the abject corruptions in the various levels of the counter-reformation texts. Logical, geographical, historical, and other direct errors. Also their lack of internal consistency. And their problems in doctrinal and other realms.

We will also counter the hodge-podge of attacks against the King James Bible. These vary from person to person, some are historical, some are translational, some are anti-Reformation Bible (Textus Receptus), some are English language criticisms and there are many others. Often they are thrown out in the "let's throw out a dozen and see if anything sticks mode" without sincerity from the Bible adversaries. Others are thrown out in the "I don't care that this was already powerfully and cogently answered" mode, reflection the "I will repeat it because my conscience is seared" condition of some adversaries.

To be fair, on rare occasions the questions come forth with some sincerity.

In these attacks we often come across those based on a claim that the King James Bible does not represent the source language texts. Will Kinney could give you dozens of examples of such claims, and they range from vapid to silly to insipid to loony to meshugana to a few that at least are interesting and good studies. (Actually, often even the loony ones lead the Bible believers to good studies, as we learn the word of God more excellently. What was meant for ill is turned to good.)

In our upholding the word of God we will use many tools to disassemble the false attacks. And one of these tools will be showing the inconsistent and erroneous ways in which the opponents have abused source language arguments. In so doing it can be 100% proper to reference the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic or Latin aspects. Either our own understanding, or those of others who have helped share on the way.

This is an auxiliary aspect of King James Bible defense. It is by no means necessary for any individual, defender or otherwise, nor is it necessary for those studying to show themselves approved. This type of defense logic and truth is simply a reasonable service of some Bible defenders.

Shalom,
Steven

That was awesome.

[bibleprotector]

To be fair, on rare occasions the questions come forth with some sincerity.

This is where things like Burgon, Hills, Grady and Holland are useful, especially in regards to combating the present propaganda regarding issues concerning original text and translation.

Some King James Bible preference writers like to show the weakness of the modernist position from their own lack of consistency (like quoting modern versions that disagree, etc.). This certainly makes a point, but it is not the whole picture: to prove the King James Bible is authority based upon its own self is primary to the foundation for all such dealings with those infected by modernist thinking.

Our authority of Scripture is based upon the advent and perfect content of present (and enduring) Scripture as interpreted spiritually. This means that there is no need to aid interpretation and understanding of the Scripture by relying upon foreign or original languages, since the manifest Scripture in English contains all things which are necessary, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Our authority of Scripture is based upon the advent and perfect content of present (and enduring) Scripture as interpreted spiritually. This means that there is no need to aid interpretation and understanding of the Scripture by relying upon foreign or original languages, since the manifest Scripture in English contains all things which are necessary, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Well said. Personally, I have really come to appreciate the verses in 1 John.

"But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John 2:20). (Not suggesting I'm a know-it-all!)

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him" (1 John 2:27).

[PB1789]

Atlas:--- If you are going to ask an opinion poll question, then please do.

If you answer your own question and then post a statement/thought which thwarts any actual discussion/input/thought, ... you are not encouraging anyone to post unless they have your team's pom-poms and colors.

{ You might get an autographed 8x10 glossy of someone from Pennsacola, Florida though. }

[bibleprotector]

PB1789, do you think there is a perfect Greek text edition of the New Testament? Do you think there is a perfect English text and translation Bible?

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Scott.
Glad those thoughts helped.

I omitted one part in that overview that I would like to mention, related to the thread questions.

In understanding the purity of the Reformation Bible (the foundation of the King James Bible -- the King James Bible is the Reformation Bible unto perfection) and the decrepit state of the counter-reformation modern versions, it can help to understand the truth of the Bible analysis of the Reformation giants, with the history including Erasmus, Stephanus, Calvin, Beza and others. Augmented by the theorists like Whitaker and Turretin and Fulke who helped win the battle over the Vulgate The Reformation textual analysis was based on true insight into Bible inspiration and preservation and text, and the men realized fully that God had providentially worked through the Greek line , and also the Latin texts, to preserve his word. That a little had in fact dropped out of the Greek line, and they worked with sound and solid concepts of textual history. You can see this clearly in many places, I like to use Acts 8:37 as a textbook example.

Today's modern textual "science", by contrast, is a total disaster. The paradigms are both false and unbelieving. The texts are designed to be correct, this is forced by the paradigms. This is a story that is rather amazing.

Thus it can be a good thing for a Bible believer to understand these distinctions, to read some sound history, including some of the early church writers, especially their scriptural references. This is generally not requiring any Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic at all. And none of this is at all a necessity, or even a need, for the King James Bible believer. This is extra-curricula material.

For many King James Bible defenders getting up-to-speed on these issues can also be a reasonable service, and it can be a fun study and learning experience and can make the defense of the word of God more of a joy and an ease. As you understand and attempt to share with others more excellently the super-solid base, textually and historically, of the pure and perfect word of God, the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

PB1789, do you think there is a perfect Greek text edition of the New Testament? Do you think there is a perfect English text and translation Bible?

Hello. Pardon the delay in posting a reply, but I was on another website giving a lengthy reply to a jewish woman who likes to try and trip/trick Christians with her posts. She is afraid that we ( Christians/evangelicals-etc..) want to either convert and save her or kill her... I hope that The Holy Spirit can use my Post over there to "plant a seed".

Okay--- Well It was Atlas that started this Thread with a good question. BUT, he then went on to give us his opinion... (kinda like watching most of the big News Networks here in the States.)...That was my thought. The two posts above by Steven Avery have some good information in them, and he even has the integrity to mention that there are/were other Bibles. That is good Discussion.

I'm not against "Atlas" either,,,matter of fact I think I gave him an "Amen" and a smiley face a while back for one of his previous posts.

To the Thread Question:--- Do we need Greek and Hebrew?

My answer is: Yes, Affirmative.

Why would I say that ? Several Reasons. The gents who were at Cambridge and Oxford who were appointed to the Translation work in 1604 consulted Greek and Hebrew and Latin and I think they also consulted other languages. {Both Dr. John Gill and Dr. Adam Clarke in their Commentaries on the whole Bible often site/quote verses in the Syriac/Arabic and others to help explain things to the readers.}

Martin Luther (and the other Reformers ) used Greek and Hebrew, and translated Bibles into the native tongues of their people so that they could hear/read the Word of our God in their own tongue(s). They also used the Greek and Hebrew to confound and confuse and clobber the big-wigs of the Vatican...who limited themselves to the Latin.

If you were a Botanist or Biologist would you not consult Latin sources while doing your studies ? If you hire a man who says in the Telephone book that he does Carpentry, and when he gets to your house he only has a hammer or a saw...would you let him in the front door or say to yourself;--"This guy (bloke) ain't packin' a full toolbox!" ?..?

Bible Protector-- You are in Australia and I'm quite certain that you have two American exports which you don't need, and which we (U.S.) should never have sent Down Under: Mormons (LDS) and the J.W.'s of the WatchTower. Both of those groups use and print and OK for use the King James Version of the Bible. If anyone reading this has talked with a J.W. or a Mormon on your doorstep, you know they like to quote from certain verses.

If the average Joe or Jane Public tries to talk to them (or give them a gospel message with the A.V./K.J. they very often get tangled in knots both by the J.W.'s trying to use the Bible to prove that Jesus is a secondary God, and the Mormons who (using the same Bible as you and I use) will try and get you to believe that there are many Gods and The Father , The Son and The Holy Ghost are three (3) Gods. If a regular average person has some knowledge of certain Greek and Hebrew words they can at least put up a shield against the fiery darts.

I must get some sleep, so I'll end soon here. I don't like the many publishing house/groups that have to come out with a "New"/"Improved" Version each year, but I also find the screaming-meemies who stand near the door of a Christian book store and yell at customers entering that if they don't buy a King James version,,,then they will go to Hell.. That is just plain weird and makes us folks that use and prefer the A.V. a tad "kooky" in the eyes of the public...IMO.

I stand with the statement found at the front of some A.V./K.J. Bibles---called the "Translators to the Reader." They Translated and our God has preserved His word as it says on my signature on this post.

[bibleprotector]

PB1789,

You seem to be a "KJB preference" type of person, because you said, “us folks that use and prefer the A.V.”

You talk about how godly men of old, and of more recently, were learned in the Biblical and classical languages, and what they have wrought for the furtherance of Christian knowledge.

But the issue is not the past, the issue is the present and future. Is it vital right now to know Bible Hebrew and Bible Greek? Is it vital today to consult Strong's or other such lexicon? Is it vital to keep some edition of the Textus Receptus in print? etc.

It is one thing to acknowledge the existence of good original language editions and good Protestant Bibles, whether in English or a foreign tongue. But none of these are vital for
English speakers today: we would not be limited in our revelation or in our knowledge if the only Bible we ever had was the King James Bible.

To claim that knowledge of certain Greek or Hebrew is somehow a great aid or even needful in combating cultist doctrine is misdirected in the least. I have confounded Russelites by using the King James Bible to directly to answer their doctrines about Christ, including that Jesus is “the firstborn from the dead”. To refute error and to instruct in truth now does not require Hebrew or Greek, but the English Bible: if it really is the Word of God given perfectly in English. (And it is, for it is self-authenticating.)

Thus, we come to issue of whether you believe that the King James Bible is perfect, and exact, conceptually accurate, sense-for-sense translation. So besides having yet a reliance upon the idea of the continuing Hebrew and Greek (where did God limit preservation to the original languages only?) there is the issue of whether the King James Bible is immaculate or not.

I am not saying that if you didn’t use the King James Bible you would have gone to hell, in that millions of Christians have not used the King James Bible. But I am indicating that it should be the authority for us to the uttermost.

If you really agree with “The Translators to the Reader”, you should agree that the King James Bible is the “one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”, which means there is no need for the originals since it is the originals now in English, and there is no need for correcting anything, because it is exact.

Finally, there is a great problem with the original language evidence, in that there is no final settled text that exists extant today in either Hebrew or Greek (various editions of the Textus Receptus differ one to another), and there is no set or certain source as to what exactly is a correct meaning for any word, or for every last word in its exact proper meaning, unless we are to rely upon one source as a perfect text and translation: the King James Bible only.

bibleprotector said:

I am not saying that if you didn’t use the King James Bible you would have gone to hell, in that millions of Christians have not used the King James Bible. But I am indicating that it should be the authority for us to the uttermost.

An interesting statement! Now the bible says that 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.' Rom.10:17. In order to become a Christian one must have heard the word. Which word did these millions of Christians hear? If it is not the KJV, then is/are there other Bibles that contain the word of God that the Holy Spirit used in their conversion?

strongmeat