[Easy E]

I would argue that you are guided by a particular tradition.

I would argue that you are guided by a particular tradition and I will even tell you what that tradition is.

It is the tradition of not having a final authority, of questioning God's words (WORDS). And it is a very old tradition, it goes back to...

Well, I can't seem to remember, something to do with a woman and a snake and "Yea, hath God said..."

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but "Here I stand..."

[Brother Tim]

Just throwing my two cents in: (or should it be denarii?)

I have not heard anyone who when explaining what the verse meant stumbled at the word "study". The natural response of a spiritually-aware person is to see the whole verse together, and understand that the point is - diligent effort must be put into seeking the truths of the Scriptures.

Brother Tim's Easy Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek Lexicon: The meaning of the Greek word translated "study" in the KJB for II Timothy 2:15 is ... "study".

(p.s. This definition method will work on any other words also.)

Good stuff there Tim!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Oops, your post has an attribution issue -- seems you quoted some text from "against" but from my reply, so your quotes say they were made by me. Nope!

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by againstheresies

The essence of my argument has not been addressed, and thus still stands intact.

1. The first Century Greek word (spoudazo) meant diligent.
2. In 1611 the English word (study) meant diligent
3. Today study does not mean diligent.
4. Today in this passage we should use diligence.

What exactly then is the purpose of your argument?

Is it to help today's English speaking people of the world "better understand" the word of God? If so, would it be safe to say that there are quite a few more places in scripture that you would like to "help" us out at?

I know the real "essense" of your argument. Your "beef" isn't with a five letter English word at all, it's with a Book. A Book that you have not yet come to understand (the knowledge of the holy is understanding), a Book that you cannot control, and therefore, perhaps unknowingly, resist.

I have known no better days than the days in which I have completely submitted myself to the pure and preserved words the AV. The uncopyrighted text is unbound and it roars with confidence and power unknown to the unbelieving heart. There's just something about that Book. It stands alone, above all corrections and counterfeits, in purity and godly fruit, and is the final authority for all matters of faith (what to believe) and practice (how to live).

And now, correct me if I'm wrong, but YOU want to change it. YOU have something better. Should we allow such a change, where will it end? Isn't it true that you have alot of changes to be made to our King James Bible? Now then, what would the result be? Would it be your handy New King James Version?

My problem is this - even your NKJV contains the promise of preservation of the pure words of the LORD, and it even states that, "Every word of God is pure." Are you then going to suggest that the NKJV is in fact God's preserved words in their purity? I know you wouldn't dare say that, certainly not amidst this company.

So then, you've entered an arena of silly, ignorant King James Bible believers who actually believe that their Book is the Holy Bible. You've attempted to release us from this bondage and, in your own words you said, "I am challenging your understanding of the KJV only issue and suggesting that in some cases your dogma may cause you to miss the meaning of the Bible." Now, should we follow you, what will you put in our hands? We need a book. We need "the holy scripures" that our God promised to preserve for us.

Can you help?

[Brother Tim]

Sic 'emmm!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Diligent

Oops, your post has an attribution issue -- seems you quoted some text from "against" but from my reply, so your quotes say they were made by me. Nope!

Yes, Brandon, apologies. Are you able to correct that ? I was a little careless trying to get out to work, I meant only for the first quote to be yours, and then cut-and-paste the quote aspect down incorrectly.

I think contextually most everybody knew, but I did not mean to faux pas in that manner. Again apologies, and if you can correct it, please do so.

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I thank the Lord Jesus for the discussion of "study to shew..". I learned a lot by looking more closely at God's word and I have learned more about the way a Bible corrector thinks and how he convinces himself that he is doing a good work to be mired in confusion and to struggle against the word of God.

There is a factual comment I will make, about the Ecclesiastes use of study.

Originally Posted by againstheresie

KJV in Ecclesiastes disproves---Ecclesiastes was written in Hebrew.

Quite obviously the issue there is not the Hebrew, or any Greek, it is the English resultant sentence and the margin note in English as well. Both of which demonstrated the word 'study' in English, clearly opposed to your repeated false assertions that the English word in 1611 meant diligence, not study in our current sense. The fact that you cannot fathom something so clear and simple in English (!) is very telling.

And yes, your argumentation did speak for itself, sadly. That is why I conjecture you picked this argument up off a website.

And the fact that you threw out alternate words for Paul without any Bible checking of those words was very telling. And then your refusal to even address that very question (how and why did you suggest those words, why do you think they fit, do you see the problem) when asked three separate times .. you demonstrated a complete non-responsiveness, a lack of diligence and clarity and you wrote other things (often blind repetition) without showing a basic dialogue and analysis integrity.

So you now respond by declaring your own diligence to the forum, a claim that is a brazen nothing when your actual writings through the thread are seen.

And thus, my noting of improper motives was deliberate, carefully considered, and only after having seen your actual modus operandi multiple times.

Man in his flesh proclaims his own righteousness. You declare intensely your own diligence, rightness, soundness, desire for truth -- yet the gaps and difficulties and confusions are very apparent.

Proverbs 20:6
Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness:
but a faithful man who can find?

Shalom,
Steven

Originally Posted by againstheresies

What is the meaning of “study” in 2 Timothy 2:15, and how did you come to that conclusion?

If anyone's argument is that it ought to be translated "Be diligent to present yourself approved" then explain please how one will be diligent to present himself approved without studying in the other sense of reading the Scriptures? Those who try and make "be diligent" mean that we don't have to "study" in the sense of reading the Bible, are merely looking to cause trouble, just caviling unbelievers. After all, 1 Tim 4:13 is essentially the parallel passage in the other letter to Timothy, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." Now, compare 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Now, how will a man "be diligent" to be approved by God and rightly divide the word of truth without reading the word of truth? Perhaps one will be diligent to be approved of God by bodily exercise. (smirk)

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by Easy E

I would argue that you are guided by a particular tradition and I will even tell you what that tradition is.

It is the tradition of not having a final authority, of questioning God's words (WORDS). And it is a very old tradition, it goes back to...

Well, I can't seem to remember, something to do with a woman and a snake and "Yea, hath God said..."

Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but "Here I stand..."

Easy E ---I think you "hit the nail on the head"!

Is it not strange that someone who uses the screen name 'againsttheheresies'....comes onto a website called the King James Bible website, and uses in his signature the New KJV---a version which 95%+ of the folks here would consider a dummed down compromise version ??

I remember that booklet put out by Thomas Nelson pubs. explaining/advertising their NKJV. They had a list in the back showing all the people that worked/consulted/contributed to the project. One of them was a fellow named Nathaniel Urshan-head of the United Pentecostal Church....a Oneness (triune God denying) outfit! I wrote T.N.pubs a letter voicing my concern that a heretic should be an advisor to a Bible translation. They wrote back and said something like: "We are trying to appeal to all Christians"... shades of Thyatira--?