Originally Posted by kevin

Now I am a big fan of the King James Bible.

However, I have come across some interesting info on the design of the 1611.

It seems King James was in the occult world. And the designs on the pages look like they have pagan backgrounds!

Alot of Freemasonry symbols as well as Babylon.

Has anyone else taken notice on this?

Yahweh Bless

Kevin

Brother Kevin. Never in all my studies. I think you are mistaking the KJB for the NKJB perversion.

Bro. Danny

When I hear a pastor or teacher say, " well er that word in the Greek means a er I really can't pronouce it but my Strongs Concordance or my Interlinear say it means", I cringe because of the ignorance of that Pastor as to what he has just done to the people that are listening to him. ...
All a Christian needs to know God is preserved in the pages of the KJV. If you want to know what a word means look it up in an English dictionary even it that means going back to the 1828 Noah Websters dictionary.

There is nothing wrong with using a Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible - as it contains definitions of every word in it - but the problem comes when someone takes one possible definition and attempts to correct the English of our KJV with it.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary is an excellent resource - but there are some definitions that do not help to understand the usage of the word in the KJV - or it does not show how the meaning fits a particular passage.

For example, prophesy:

To foretell future events; to predict.

That word is used that way in some passages - however that is not how the word is used in the NT or in the book of Joel (perhaps other passages too). In the NT, the words means to preach or to witness - that is why every believer can prophesy, even the four daughters of Philip in Acts. His daughters were soulwinners.

Acts 21:8-9 And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

Many of his definitions do show a Biblical usage, but some do not. Baptism:

1. The application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion.

Bible baptism is by immersion, and is not a sacrament, but an ordinance.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by jerry

There is nothing wrong with using a Strong's Concordance to understand our King James Bible - as it contains definitions of every word in it - but the problem comes when someone takes one possible definition and attempts to correct the English of our KJV with it.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary is an excellent resource - but there are some definitions that do not help to understand the usage of the word in the KJV - or it does not show how the meaning fits a particular passage.

Agreed on both counts. I find all sorts of material is useful in study -- Strong's and 1828 Webster being high on the list -- but nothing is authoritative next to the KJB.

I don't use strong's definitions. I do use 1828 Webster. But the first thing I try to do is see where else the word is used in the bible. From those examples I pray for guidance as I study to see HOW those words are USED. e.g. "token". Is a word I was studying. I came away with a heart full of blessing after studying and praying over its occurances!

Bible Word studies are certainly the best way to understand how God uses a word in the Bible - but sometimes it is not enough to define a word. I have been using my Strong's Concordance for 10 years, and it has never led me astray. I never use it to correct the Bible, just to find a basic definition and then see how the word is used.

Originally Posted by kevin

Now I am a big fan of the King James Bible.

However, I have come across some interesting info on the design of the 1611.

It seems King James was in the occult world. And the designs on the pages look like they have pagan backgrounds!

Alot of Freemasonry symbols as well as Babylon.

Has anyone else taken notice on this?

Yahweh Bless

Kevin

Hi Kevin
I'm not sure, but I don't see where anyone has answered your specific question as above...

Here's my answer and comments...

I have taken notice on this, however as I have read about this allegation...
King James may have been in the occult world but he himself was not part of or involved in Freemasonry or the occult. As I understand it...God inspired the Scriptures but the problem with the freemasonry and occult, was that any influence was done by Sir Frances Bacon who was involved in Freemasonry and the final publication of the Bible. The Scriptures are not faulty...the human designs in the publication of the Bible are what we are seeing and hearing about. (This is as best I remember from what I read...I didn't bother much about it...This is just another Satanic way of taking us from the truth of the Bible itself...)

A modern similar situation is that some of the Seventh Day Adventist published Bibles have a Satanic symbol on the cover. The say it is based on "The 3 angels message" that they preach. Could be...however they should know better!! Of course the Bible is still the KJV inside so no great harm done...it makes me uneasy however.

I may be slightly incorrect on my information but you can check it out where I read the complete story (you may already have the reference). Go to http://www.cuttingedge.org/defendingKJV.html and find it there.

Good that you brought up the subject!

Regards,
Pilgrim

A corrupt Greek, Hebrew dictionary will only corrupt your understanding of a Biblical word. The Bible is its own best commentary and can be interpreted with English words. Strong's is one way to confuse yourself about a subject that is very complex. Unless you are at least as smart as the translators that King James VI,I chose for the task of translating then I would just try to understand English. Otherwise you are chasing rabbits trying to play like you are a scholar that can even understand Greek or Hebrew. It has already been done by the smartest men God ever raised up for that task of clarifying his word. How we ever agree on anything if we don't first accept Gods Word at its face value?KJB.
__________________

but nothing is authoritative next to the
Brandon

Amen and Amen to that.

Bro. Danny

Originally Posted by Lively Stone

A corrupt Greek, Hebrew dictionary will only corrupt your understanding of a Biblical word. The Bible is its own best commentary and can be interpreted with English words. Strong's is one way to confuse yourself about a subject that is very complex. Unless you are at least as smart as the translators that King James VI,I chose for the task of translating then I would just try to understand English. Otherwise you are chasing rabbits trying to play like you are a scholar that can even understand Greek or Hebrew. It has already been done by the smartest men God ever raised up for that task of clarifying his word. How we ever agree on anything if we don't first accept Gods Word at its face value?KJB.
__________________

Way to go! That's what I was trying to say earlier.

"I'm not a textual critic. . . .but I play one in real life!"

Please prove that Strong's is corrupt. Some say Webster's 1828 Dictionary is okay to use - but even his definitions are based on what the root words mean in the underlying languages - why is it wrong to know what the words in the underlying Hebrew and Greek mean? If there were no preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and a way to translate them accurately, then we would not even have a sound English Bible today (which we do). The KJV does not correct the underlying Hebrew or Greek - it is the exact equivalent of it in English.

I am not trying to be offensive here - but many people I know who utterly refuse to use Strong's Concordance or any objective Bible study tool to understand the meanings of the words in the Bible end up coming up with some pretty wacky definitions and/or doctrine, because they do not understand the words - or bring their own subjective definition into the passage, rather than seeing what the word (whether the English word itself, or the underlying Hebrew and Greek words) means.

Jerry see if this example works for you.

In the rapture doctrine world [which I do not believe in] many quote from 1 Thess 4.

verse 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Let us focus on the word "air"

The 1828 Websters defines this:

AIR, n. [L. aer; Heb. to shine. The radical sense is to open, expand; whence clear; or to flow, to shoot, to radiate.]

1. The fluid which we breathe. Air is inodorous, invisible, insipid, colorless, elastic, possessed of gravity, easily moved, rarefied, and condensed.

Atmospheric air is a compound fluid, consisting of oxygen gas, and nitrogen or azote; the proportion of each is stated by chimists differently; some experiments making the oxygen a twenty-eighth part of a hundred; others, not more than a twenty-third, or something less. The latter is probably the true proportion.

Oxygen gas is called vital air. The body of air surrounding the earth is called the atmosphere. The specific gravity of air is to that of water, nearly as 1 to 828. Air is necessary to life; being inhaled into the lungs, the oxygenous part is separated from the azotic, and it is supposed to furnish the body with heat and animation. It is the medium of sounds and necessary to combustion.

2. Air in motion; a light breeze.

Let vernal airs through trembling osiers play.

3. Vent; utterance abroad; publication; publicity; as, a story has taken air.

You gave it air before me.

Wind is used in like manner.

4. A tune; a short song or piece of music adapted to words; also, the peculiar modulation of the notes, which gives music its character; as, a soft air. A song or piece of poetry for singing; also, the leading part of a tune, or that which is intended to exhibit the greatest variety of melody.

5. The peculiar look, appearance, manner or mien of a person; as, a heavy air; the air of youth; a graceful air; a lofty air. It is applied to manners or gestures, as well as to features.

6. Airs, in the plural, is used to denote an affected manner, show of pride, haughtiness; as, when it is said of a person, he puts on airs. The word is used also to express the artificial motions or carriage of a horse.

7. In painting, that which expresses the life of action; manner; gesture; attitude.

8. Any thing light or uncertain; that is light as air.

Who builds his hope in air of your fair looks. Obs.

9. Advice; intelligence; information. Obs.

10. Different states of air are characterized by different epithets; as, good air, foul air, morning air, evening air; and sometimes airs may have been used for ill-scent or vapor, but the use is not legitimate.

To take the air, is to go abroad; to walk or ride a little distance.

To take air, is to be divulged; to be made public.

AIR, v.t.

1. To expose to the air; to give access to the open air; to ventilate; as, to air clothes; to air a room.

2. To expose to heat; to warm; as, to air liquors.

3. To dry by a fire; to expel dampness; as, to air linen.



Now let's compare to the Strongs which goes along with the manuscripts,

aēr
ah-ayr'
From ἄημι aēmi (to breathe unconsciously, that is, respire; by analogy to blow); “air” (as naturally circumambient)

Now we know that Paul states in 1 Corin. 15 that at the last trump all flesh bodies will be change into a spiritual body.

When you take the Greek definition and compare it to Gen. 2

verse 7 And the Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Note Breath of life. In the Hebrew, "neshâmâh chay".

What does "neshamah" mean "a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect"

Do you see that the same breathe of life that was blown into the man, is the same as that change at the last trump?

Does Webster define it this way? I don't think so.

Now before the higher critics get into a uproar.

Can we agree that Paul was a very intelligent person?

Then why wouldn't he use the Greek word, "ouranos" which means the sky?

I take this example from Matthew 6:26.

This is just one example of many.

Yahweh Bless

Kevin