[bibleprotector]

As part of "greater context" to what I am saying, you will note that my last paragraph lays out the seventh, and most important point, understanding of which would be foundational to understanding the rest, being the idea that the same Gospel which progress is prophesied of in Acts 1:8, Acts 13:47, etc. is being fulfilled. The mystery is revealed: to understand such things requires not being locked to a narrow view of Scripture just in its "context". Scripture must be compared with Scripture. Each Scripture is important, every word of our English Bible cared for by God Himself. Therefore, concerning interpretation, Burgon spoke of "comparing passage with passage", "Nay, by no other method can you hope to understand the Bible, than by such a laborious comparison of its several parts."

We find this principle in operation throughout the Scripture itself, where Paul might interpret Isaiah 28:11 differently to the way the Rabbis had. I am not talking about private interpretations, but "For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad." (Luke 8:17). Again, "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col. 1:26).

This is why I am showing that it is the King James Bible which should go forth to all Gentiles and the Jews. It is something "foolish", something which "provokes to jealousy", something which is "not", "beggarly", "weak", "scattered and peeled" and yet it is true. I expect that you might have pointed out how the words I list above may describe this idea, but that only confirms yet again that what we have is power to come down upon the princes of this world who did not expect these things.

In regards to a upholding a pure edition of the King James Bible for all the inhabitants of the earth, I find that even Burgon (or even Luther) knew that "The very printed pages should be handled with reverence, in consideration of the message they contain." Let those of the spirit of Babylon claim that we but worship paper and ink, that we have a superstitious deference to quaint English words, and dismiss us as some sort of jingoists, but I say it is to late for them, for that by knowing these words, where they come from, where they are in truth, and where they going is itself a great sign and wonder.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I find that even Burgon (or even Luther) knew that "The very printed pages should be handled with reverence, in consideration of the message they contain."

A very nice quote, and a good response to the vapid bibliolatry accusation. A little checking and it is from a work of the Dean that is only partly at Google but is available fully at CCEL and Archive.org:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/inspiration.html
http://www.archive.org/details/inspi...nter00burgrich
Inspiration and Interpretation - Seven Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford

Let me not be misunderstood if it is added that the Bible should be
read,--I do not say in the same manner,--that is, in the same temper
and spirit,--but at least with the same attention, as is bestowed upon
a merely human work. In truth, it should be read with much more
attention. But that diligence which a student commonly bestows on a
difficult moral treatise, or an obscure drama, or a perplexed
history,--analyzing it, comparing passage with passage, and learning a
great deal of it by heart,--I am quite at a loss to understand why a
student of the Bible should be a stranger to.--"I do much condemn,"
(says Lord Bacon), "I do much condemn that Interpretation of the
Scripture which is only after the manner as men use to interpret a
profane book." So do I. Scripture is to be approached and handled in
quite a different spirit from a common history. The mind, the heart
rather, must bow down before its revelations, in the most suppliant
fashion imaginable. The book should ever be approached with
prayer:--"Lord, open Thou mine eyes that I may see the wondrous things
of Thy Law!" The very printed pages should be handled with reverence,
in consideration of the message they contain. But what I am saying is,
that none of the methods which diligence and zeal have ever invented to
secure a complete mastery of the contents of any merely human
performance, may be overlooked by a student of the Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by kjvisit

May I step in as a newbie here and further suggest that any attempt to define/understand a word/phrase in the AV by going to the Greek and Hebrew only opens a "pandora box."

KJvisit .. Some of this I discussed on page one, so I will try from a different perspective.

Personally I believe two things are being moshed up.

One is how the church is under the authority of the word of God. For that context, no need for Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. A preaching, a teaching, a word, a study ... all English (King James Bible) all the time is 100% very fine.

The other is how we defend the King James Bible in the public arena. Dissassembling the weak arguments of the no-pure-Bible folks has strengthened my faith in the word of God, the King James Bible. Including the dozens of times when I went on little travels through the realms of lexicons and other language issues. I always end up amazed how simply and powerfully the King James Bible "got it right". As a side benefit some churlish snarling skeptic is sent a-packing. Apparently God has honored my novice attempts to understand a bit more about the King James Bible, including the source texts. And those wonderful articles of others like Will Kinney and Marty Shue who use a bit of language background (more than I have) combined with study and heart and prayer and anointing, to daily refute the bumbling scattershot attempts of the no-pure-Bible folks.

Shalom,
Steven

[Brother Tim]

Though my intellect and my natural desire to win a debate agree with Steven, my experience and my spirit agree with KJVisit.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Though my intellect and my natural desire to win a debate agree with Steven, my experience and my spirit agree with KJVisit.

Usually when you discuss these issues it is not so much for the protagonist themselves, who are somewhat calloused in opposition and mired in confusion. It is more for the outside reader, observer, the interested and seeking party who is researching and listening to all sides.

As for kjvisit questioning the term used here :

"It can be a stinging rebuke to the Bible correctors when they are shown to be totally in fabrication-land in their accusations"

I hope Marty Shue would not mind my giving his article on Cyprian and the Johannine Comma, disassembling the confusions and maneuvers of one Daniel Wallace, as a good example. And if the word "stinging rebuke" sounds unnecessarily combative and harsh, how about

"informative and educational sharing".

Shalom,
Steven

[Brother Tim]

or put another way,

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

[Steven Avery]

Hi kjvisit,

You could make the very same arguments against our posts that discussed the Niagara Bible Conference flawed views that are considered 'fundamentalist'.

Yet those posts (from Matthew and myself) you called an "eye opener!!!".

Perhaps you can be more consistent than looking to awkwardly mold scripture interpretation to match a personal view.

Shalom,
Steven

[PB1789]

Kjvisit:---Got to disagree with your statements above. Not against the A.V. mind you, but there are real benefits to looking up the meanings of the words in the original languages. First example would be in the 10 Commandents where "Kill" is used. The hebrew word is "ratsach" Strong's reference number 7523. That verse has been used from the K.J. for people to try and get out of military service to their country. The meaning of that hebrew word is "Murder". Have you never run into unbelievers and skeptics that like to use that verse to try and show that either there are contradictions in God's Word, or that The Lord God is "two-faced" because in other places in Scripture the Israelites are commanded to kill their enemies..?

Another place where the Hebrew word definitions are VERY helpful is found in Isaiah 45:7. In that verse the translators used the english word "evil", yet the meaning of the Hebrew word is "Calamity, or woe". That verse has been used by some (a former pastor of mine for instance) to say that The Lord God Almighty is the creator of sin...!! {Wrong answer!}

Another nice thing about looking up the various meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words are finding the "shades" of meaning that are in the Greek especially the english word "Love". In the New Testament such words as Agape and phileo and eros are all translated into english as "Love"...looking up the greek definitions are very helpful. There is an interesting dialogue between the Resurrected Lord Jesus and Simon Peter, in John 21:15. Check out the word meanings there. The greek words used are apape and phileo-not eros, as some homosexuals try to misuse the scripture to justify their wickedness.

As for scholars: Remember that it was Scholars of the first order that translated the A.V.. The men tasked with that job knew the old languages and studied for years to get their posts as professors.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by PB1789

The hebrew word is "ratsach" Strong's reference number 7523. ... In that verse the translators used the english word "evil", yet the meaning of the Hebrew word is "Calamity, or woe".

You don't need a lexicon to tell you those things. All you need to do is to read the verses in their context, and to compare the word as used in other passages.

I challenge you to actually look up all the occurrences of "ratsach" and hold to the "single definition" of murder. (Such as Proverbs 22:13 -- an animal does not "murder" in the legal sense.) The KJV translators understood the Hebrew better than any short lexicon definition -- which is why they translated it with several different English words depending on the context.

[Brother Tim]

Hey PB, do a word search using the Strong's numbers (quite easy to do in Swordsearcher!) and notice how interchangeable the two Greek words translated "love in the John 21 passage are in the rest of the NT. To put more into their meaning than "love" can really mix up the other locations.