A crafty way that multiple version (MV) or eclectic text (ET) advocates oppose the support of the King James Version is by lumping together all King James Version proponents as if they are all the same. There are extreme differences between different King James Version positions. To pick out the weakest, or even the strangest, a weird one, that has almost no veracity, and to knock it down, demolish it, doesn't mean that you've actually proven much, if anything. And MV and ET defenders do mow down the worst of the KJVO (King James Version Only) and treat it like they've downed Goliath, included often times with strutting and trash-talking.
From the outside looking in, the MV/ET approach the odd KJV views like how upperclassmen, who still play freshman football, might pick on someone like themselves, but who plays on the junior high team. The upperclassmen are pathetic. Those KJVO aren't reading you and those who do read you are not in any risk of reading them. Please leave them alone.
Ultimately, you just want to follow the truth and honor God, right? Isn't that what you want? You aren't trying only to win a debate or an argument. You want to take the position that represents God, what He's said, right? So just because we are able easily to dispose of some far-out, non-historic, non-exegetical viewpoints, doesn't mean that we've reached that goal. We haven't even defended our own belief by doing away with other wrong beliefs.
So what are various King James Version positions?
I'm not going to attempt to label each of the views that people take, who support the King James Version, because the advocates will say I got it wrong. This will not come in any particular order.
Double Inspiration
Some believe that God has improved upon the original Hebrew and Greek by inspiring the Bible in English. Those who believe this say that the King James Version is the final edition of God's inspiration and God chose to accomplish this in English. Obviously, these are people who support the King James Version and they're King James Only, but they are much different than other iterations of KJVO. As I've read this type of KJVO and then MV/ET, I have found them to be very similar in their underlying error. They are both detached from bibliology.
English Preservation
Some teach that God preserved His Word by means of the English translation, the King James Version. They don't believe that Scripture is preserved in the underlying text, because they would say that we don't have a whole Greek text of the New Testament from which the King James Version was translated. The preservation of Scripture is found in the English, the King James Version. Any reference to the underlying Greek text is an attempt, it seems, to correct the KJV.
Majority or Byzantine Text
There are those who prefer the King James because it comes from the majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or from the Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament. It became a standardized translation, so they prefer it. They don't accept the modern versions, because those are influenced by the critical or eclectic text. They aren't dogmatic about the King James Version. They just approve of it themselves without condemning people who use other translations.
Accurate English Translation of a Providentially Preserved Text
God preserved His Words, everyone of them, in the language in which they were written, and those Words have been accessible to every generation of believers. The King James Version is the best English translation of those Words and has been acceptable to churches. This position is buttressed upon biblical and historic teaching on the preservation of scripture. This position doesn't say that every Word was preserved in any particular printed edition of the textus receptus previous to 1611, but that the perfectly preserved Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic Words were received by and accessible to true churches (believers). Some have called this the "sacred text" position. I have called this the doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture. This is the historic and biblical position.
I believe the fourth and last position here. I don't believe the top three positions. There are many just like me. Most MV/ET advocates, who do not hold a historical or biblical view, argue against the proponents of either double inspiration or English preservation, and then they act as though they have shown what's wrong with KJVO. They get back slaps and 'atta-boys' for having done so. They don't fare so well when they have to take their positions into the consideration of careful exegesis of scripture. The just shall live by faith.
65 comments:
Bro. Kent,
Why should I believe God re-inspired the Greek Text in English? After all, if He couldn't preserve the Greek Text, why should I believe He can preserve the English? If the former became corrupt, then why shouldn't the latter? Re-inspiration into English sounds like wicked Ruckmanism.
tjp
Dear Kent,
I've been thinking about this issue and where I stand. I basically agree with you but have not sorted out all the details.
Can you expand on your view?
1. Where can I find, today, the Providentially Preserved Text in the original languages?
2. Critics will say there are variations in this family of texts. How do we identify the true Word among the many copies?
3. If a new translation was done under the authority of the church using the Providentially Preserved Text would you support it?
If you have already answered this elsewhere please post a link.
Thanks John
tjp,
It's true. I didn't use any names in the article, because if you say someone is one of these, he might deny it. For instance, I don't know that Ruckman himself would say he believes in reinspiration. I'll let others decide.
John,
Thanks. I've answered them elsewhere, but I've give short answers here.
1. There is a printed edition of the Greek NT, Srivener's. Ben Chayyim Masoretic for OT.
2. It's the same argument as canonicity. The churches agreed on TR and Ben Chayyim. Whatever wrangling there is on very few words, I trust what God said He would do. The "scholars" seem to be most interested in the historical aspect of it, but when they don't start with the doctrine of preservation, there will never be a settled text. I'm settled on where I see the church was settled.
3. I would fine with an update. It's already been done between 1611 and 1769. The NKJV is not one.
Dear John,
Perhaps this would be helpful:
http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/06/confession-of-faith-on-inspiration-and_28.html
"There is a printed edition of the Greek NT, Srivener's."
The contents of which are arrived at/determined by an English translation. Just to be clear.
D4,
That wouldn't be enough for me to rest my doubt on. If you are going to hitch your uncertainty to that Scrivener argument, you'll go nowhere. The words were translated from something, and when you look at what men preached, who knew the original languages, they accepted both the belief and the text that is a basis for it. Our position has always been Words, and the position of the Bible and history is Words, but we're talking sheer application of biblical theology for a Scrivener answer. Before you get to application, you should start with doctrine. I don't read any MV/ET doctrine, except as an attack on already established doctrine. Just to be clear.
Amen! I agree completely with your article. Thank you for it. I think what you say here accurately reflects the position of the King James Bible Research Council, Inc.
http://www.kjbresearchcouncil.com/Default.htm
Kent, you may recall discussing this subject on JackHammer a time or two. When one of your cohorts proposed that a new translation based on the preserved text would be legitimate, he was crucified in the comments. I don't recall a vigorous defense of him at that time by the other JackHammers. As I recall, he beat a hasty retreat and the subject was dropped.
Why don't you and some of those who hold to your views go ahead and create a new translation based on the preserved text?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Hi Don,
You're pretty right, but not completely, as I contemplate that period. We supported Dave in his assertion, but not publically, because I wasn't really wanting to join in at the moment. I wouldn't call it a retreat; just a lack of public support, but in part because I told him privately not to write it, because it would be a distraction, I thought, at that point. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion. I like the KJV actually, and I don't think it should be entered into lightly. Look at what those translators did. Whoever would do it, should do it with the support of those who support the underlying text. The people who do support that don't seem to desire a change. I get why. For that reason, you've seen something like a Defined King James Version, versus a new translation. I've seen many Defined King James Version around.
"Re-inspiration into English sounds like wicked Ruckmanism."
Nonsense. I have read all of Ruckmans books on this issue and he believes like so many who hold to biblical inspiration, ALL... ALL... ALL... SCRIPTURE is given BY INSPIRATION...
If it is scripture, then it IS inspired. It can be inspired in Greek, Hebrew, English or other languages by which the church (historically) received the words of God through time and by providential leading of the Holy Ghost, those scriptures were translated by faithful men (EX: KJB). The proof of the inspiration of that text is when the Holy Ghost puts a seal on it through common faith of born-again believers in the body of Christ.
The Holy King James Bible has been proven faithful, by our fathers of old, and today is proven faithful by the same born again believers who hold to same common faith of the INSPIRATION of the scriptures (Jeremiah 6:16)!
Hey George,
I made that statement on the strength of Ruckman's belief that the English corrects the Greek. If the Greek needs correcting, then obviously God never preserved it.
Which leaves us with an interesting query: If God couldn't keep the Greek straight and had to re-inspire it in English, then what makes you think (1)that He can keep the English straight and (2) that He won't later re-inspire the English in Chinese, Spanish, etc.?
According to the Ruckman theory, we don't have a stable text. Thus, the English must "correct the Greek." If the text were stable and settled, why would it need correcting?
tjp
GEORGE CALVAS wrote: The Holy King James Bible has been proven faithful, by our fathers of old, and today is proven faithful by the same born again believers who hold to same common faith. . .
Bro. B., I know you don't ultimately agree with George. I'm pretty sure I have a good bead on what you do and don't believe on this issue. However. Reading specifically what he wrote above, I could easily see you writing it. It's nearly what you've said in other places (albeit to support a different ultimate position).
But is there that much difference? What was received by the churches in your opinion? The Greek underlieing the KJV or the KJV? Here is where folks have a hard time differentiating TSKT KJVOism from English preservationism. You say they may have had manuscripts. Had to have had. Yet didn't the churches really receive the English KJV? Then finally in the 1880s the manuscript gets reverse engineered.
This is how it looks to those outside your position.
I'm sorry that what I've said is probably going to embolden George.
George, for the record, your position is full on un-Biblical, and Bro. B. and Thomas are correct in rebuking it.
D4,
If you took certain quotes of men who are off, you often find some truth in them, sort of like a broken clock is right twice a day. If "people accepted the KJV" was the one argument I played, we would be in tune on that -- it's true. But you really do start with scripture and it wasn't written in English. It's a somewhat complicated argument, like arguing for the Trinity. It's right, but you've got to spend a little time to get the argument out. People accepted the text behind the KJV. Actually the German Bible, the French Bible, and the English Bible all translated from the same Greek and Hebrew text. Aland, who has no horse in the race, said the TR before 1500 was established, already accepted as the original verbatum before Erasmus came along. You read the same thing from everyone at that time. Does it matter to you anyway? Are you open to the position of God's people for the period from the printing press for 400 years, or do you think they had apostatized on a true bibliology?
We will come out with a second TSKT, have always been preparing to do that, which will flesh out the doctrine, but I wish people would acknowledge the doctrine, and to admit that their side had and has no doctrine on this.
I am open to the possibility that I am wrong on this, yes.
"I made that statement on the strength of Ruckman's belief that the English corrects the Greek."
When one uses "the Greek" (whatever that means) to point to supposed errors in the Holy Bible, then yes, the English will correct the Greek.
d4v wrote:
What was received by the churches in your opinion?
All of a sudden, we are concerned about an opinion? Who cares what you think, I think or Kent thinks. The biblical position is that the scripture IS given by inspiration. It is alive today and it is certainly, unequivocally, without error found in the inspired Holy King James Bible no matter what any mans opinion is about it or what Greek Text it came from says. Does history prove this? Yes, so "that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed".
"The Greek underlying the KJV or the KJV?"
The common faith of millions of spirit-filled Christians for 400 years believe that Holy King James Bible NO MATTER what scholarship or Greek text was behind it. For most and above all, it is believed because the Spirit of God has sealed it as the scriptures and its inherent power is manifest today by those spirit-filled Christians who believe it "as it is written".
For thus saith the scripture, "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".
(1 Corinthians 2:13-14).
George,
If God has allowed His Greek words to fall into disrupte, what makes you think He won't allow His English words to suffer a similar fate?
Just wondering.
tjp
"If God has allowed His Greek words to fall into disrupte, what makes you think He won't allow His English words to suffer a similar fate?"
The reason for this is quite simple, for there is NO evangelism to the world coming from Greece or Israel, therefore their texts have been set aside. What is absolutely certain is that for 400 years, evangelistic efforts to preach Christ is still accomplished by ENGLISH speaking evangelists and missionaries because the Holy King James Bible is ALIVE through spirit-filled Christians of the common faith.
What could be in store in the future if Christ has not yet come?
Maybe China might be the great evangelistic nation and the Holy King James Bible will be used to produce a Chinese language bible with the same authority and power.
This would not diminish the Holy English Bible that produced the Chinese bible, but to argue that the "English corrects the Chinese" IF after 400 years of Chinese evangelists and missionaries changed the world for Jesus Christ, then that argument like today would produce the same kind of DIVISION and STRIFE to the body of Christ that Chinese "scholars" that "study the English" would now produce in that time!
If you want to study Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic as HISTORICAL evidence, or want to learn it so that you can go to Greece or the Middle East and "preach the gospel", the scriptures and the commandments of God are in your favor!
Otherwise, quit causing division and strife since we all should in the common faith of ENGLISH believers "believe THE Bible" apart from our differences on the particulars of historical preservation and text types, since this is never mentioned in any Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac, English or other faithful translations of the scriptures!
George,
I can be very, very happy about learning languages to preach the gospel. As you know, koine Greek is not the spoken Greek of Greece. That's not the point.
The point is that God revealed His special revelation, moved upon men of God to write the New Testament in Greek. There was no English. You don't actually believe in preservation if you don't believe He preserved the Bible in the Greek.
We're all for translation. All of us. We're all for preaching. We could argue about who does more preaching and have a preaching competition. It's not an argument though. If I "beat" you at preaching to more people, I don't win an argument about Greek or English.
What TJP is saying is that if God promised in the Greek to preserve the Greek, and he didn't, which is what you believe, then why do you believe that God would preserve the English also? I think it is a good point, and you didn't answer it.
if I might interject a comment , the problem of { the greek says} is this is the phrase used to cause men to doubt what is written and held in their hands ,, the kjv is translated from original languages, and the purpose most preachers use greek &hebrew for is to question the AV , and cast doubt upon its translation of hebrew and greek, ..
If you need to know greek to understand the kjv , then 98% of the independent baptists are in big trouble and need to either learn original tongues fluently,or confess truth is far from them, and submit to those who pull this ace out of the hole.
T. James
T. James,
Some English speakers don't know English either, so they're in big trouble.
The logic doesn't work. Here's the logic.
You must know Greek to know the NT, which is Greek.
I don't know Greek.
Therefore, the NT couldn't be Greek.
The logic falls at you must know Greek to know the NT. It doesn't fall at the NT is Greek, because the NT is Greek. Not knowing Greek doesn't mean the NT is English, for the convenience of English speakers.
People from Thailand will have to submit to English speakers if we in turn make the NT English, or learn English.
Nothing in the fourth view says that you can't know the Bible if you don't know Greek. Hebrew and Greek can be translated into other languages.
is this logical?
the nt is greek I know greek,therefore I translate it into english which is my native language ,
now I have a translation of the greek nt in english created by me, ,
if my translation is correct it can correct your translation of the greek which is incorrect.
Unless you were born speaking , reading , writing nt greek,
you are left to various sources to gather your view of the proper english meaning of the nt greek,
which is what we have today in the english speaking world,
men who offer contradictory opinions of what the greek text says, and offering their educated,scholarly opinion in english, and thereby giving us yet another translation of the greek... with a multitude of english translations produced by learned greek scholars, and a multitude of conflicting opinions{in english } concerning what the greek nt {CT or otherwise} actually says ,
we are left with no alternative but to surrender to multiple opinions greek scholars have given us,
I find this hard to accept in light of how God has used and blessed the KJV
I appreciate your ability and knowledge of nt greek, but would you have me reject a God blessed translation {produced by nt greek scholars} for one that offers criticism and contradicts the one I have ? things that differ cannot be the same
T.James
T. James,
At what point have I said reject the KJV? I'm KJVO.
And you're wrong about Greek. It doesn't take that much to know enough to help your understanding of the KJV. And from there, why not learn more?
There are conflicts among English speakers about the KJV too. For instance, what does "Comforter" mean in John 15:26? Let's just start there.
Dear George,
The fact that you believe Jesus Christ is God the Father, and you are part of a denomination that holds to this heresy, does not make your Ruckmanism any more appealing.The King James Bible never teaches modalism. It teaches classical trinitarianism.
George, please receive instruction on the true doctrine of God here:
http://faithsaves.net/trinitarianism/
This will glorify God and be to your eternal benefit.
George,
tjp: "If God has allowed His Greek words to fall into disrepute, what makes you think He won't allow His English words to suffer a similar fate?"
George: [The reason for this is quite simple, for there is NO evangelism to the world coming from Greece or Israel, therefore their texts have been set aside.]
tjp: How do you know Greek Christians aren't evangelizing people with the gospel throughout Europe, the Mediterranean, and beyond? Who told you they weren't? At any rate, how is this a criterium for God's allowing His inspired Greek words to fall into disrepute? Couldn't He as readily reach the non Greek speaking world with Greek as with English? Interestingly, given your argument, we could say the Latin Vulgate is the God-ordained text since Catholics, at least during the latter half of the 20th Century, were producing 800 Roman Catholic Priest-missionaries per month from Ireland alone!!!
Moreover, according to you, once the English-speaking peoples cease evangelizing, then God will set aside the KJV for something else. Thus, in your peculiar Bibliology, the English text remains inspired only as long as English speakers evangelize with it. Once they cease evangelizing, God stops preserving. Where in Scripture is evangelism a requirement for inspiration and preservation?
George: [What is absolutely certain is that for 400 years, evangelistic efforts to preach Christ is still accomplished by ENGLISH speaking evangelists and missionaries because the Holy King James Bible is ALIVE through spirit-filled Christians of the common faith.]
tjp: Perhaps so, but in the past 75 years most evangelism has taken place in Africa and Latin America. And the KJV isn't the basis of it. God has used even "the meanest translations" to accomplish His will. While it's true He has used the KJV greatly, it may be for reasons other than what you suggest (that it's God's new inspired text.) There were certainly cultural, political, practical, economic, and technological reasons.
George: [Maybe China might be the great evangelistic nation and the Holy King James Bible will be used to produce a Chinese language bible with the same authority and power.]
tjp: George, tell me, If God can produce a perfect English translation from a corrupt Greek text, then why can't He produce a perfect Chinese translation from a corrupt English text? In other words, why would He need the KJV to produce a perfect Chinese translation? Do you believe God needs a floating standard--Greek yesterday, English today, and Chinese tomorrow? We have His one perfect standard in His preserved Hebrew and Greek words.
tjp
KJB1611:
Why are you off the subject?
I do not believe in modalism, therefore you are a liar. I pray to the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son everyday.
Trying to help you understand that the body of Jesus Christ IN THE FLESH is of the Father in light of Hebrews 10:5 cf. John 1:14 and cf. Genesis 3:15 as well as other passages which concern the "seed of conception" (Matthew 1:20) would be futile.
A deeper understanding of the TRINITY has its place, but if one calls a brother in Christ a heretic, I am not interested.
The scriptures are much deeper than "classical trinitarianism" or "historical fundamentalism"!
Kent , sorry for the confusion I believe you are KJVO
and as far as I know you agree there are no errors in our text of the English KJV ,,,, is this accurate ?
T. James
Dear George,
Whether or not a person believes in God, that is, in the Trinity, has definite implications for whether or not he will have the right view of the preservation of Scripture.
Your religious organization has very serious errors on the holy Trinity:
We believe that Jesus Christ is God the Father (John 10:30) manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and that Jesus Christ was and is the bodily manifestation of God Almighty. (http://theanabaptistschurch.com/Articles_of_Faith_187H.html)
Jesus Christ is not God the Father. That is idolatry.
The following statement about the Holy Spirit is just bizarre:
2.05 As a ghost is the spirit of a dead man (Luke 24:37/ Matthew 14:26), we believe that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Jesus Christ which He gave up on Calvary when He died for our sins (John 19:30/ Matthew 27:50/ Mark 15:37/ Luke 23:46), and as the Holy Ghost (Acts 1:2-8) is the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9/ Philippians 1:19). These Three being One God, each exists eternally as God, and as the manifestations of themselves in One as distinguished from the Other. God is a spirit, and that spirit is the Holy Spirit, who was the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) of Jesus Christ, who Himself was the bodily manifestation of God the Father with the Holy Spirit breathing within Him as the very Life of God. Though the Eternal God cannot die, God the Father sent His Son into the world to do just that, yielding up the ghost when He had finished His Father’s work; upon which the Holy Ghost of God became the working manifestation of God the Father in baptizing believers into the very body of God, Jesus Christ the Righteous (1 Corinthians 12:11-14/ Acts 1:5). (http://theanabaptistschurch.com/Articles_of_Faith_187H.html)
The comparison of the Holy Ghost of God to the human spirit of a dead man is totally unscriptural and is idolatrous. Other serious errors are also found.
When I confronted you about these statements, you stated: "There is absolutely no problem with the doctrinal statement above."
The statements are simple affirmations of modalism. If you say that there is absolutely no problem with them, you are making an affirmation of modalism yourself.
The discussion is here:
http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/09/answering-david-cloud-on-church-pt-2.html
That a non-Trinitarian would hold to a corruption such as Ruckmanism is less surprising than if members of true churches do so.
KJB1611
One in three, three in one and the one in the middle died for me.
The statements in the articles of faith are a confirmation of the above, even if you have an inability to comprehend them.
Kent wrote:
"What TJP is saying is that if God promised in the Greek to preserve the Greek..."
Could you please provide me THE Greek Bible he preserved? Whatever your answer is, can you affirm and know of this by providing names of bible believing Greek churches that use that text to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."?
Kent wrote:
"There are conflicts among English speakers about the KJV too. For instance, what does "Comforter" mean in John 15:26? Let's just start there."
Who is the Comforter? HE is the Spirit of truth, the one who "lead you into all truth", the Holy Ghost of God given on the following basis:
"John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
And you point is?
I could spend 5-10 pages "comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13)" and write about the Comforter, the Holy Ghost without EVER having to know ANYTHING about Greek.
Those who believe in the Holy King James Bible will be given more understanding and insight if they believe "every word of God as written" than ANYONE who uses the Greek Lexicons and study helps to try to prove that he has been given special "insight".
Furthermore, that is on the path of "crossing the line" into Nicolaitanism, the thing which God hates.
T. James,
I believe the KJV is an accurate translation.
George (and T. James),
When the King James translators translated Parakletos, "Comforter," in John 15:26, what did they mean by Comforter? What does Comforter mean? What's my point? I'm asking you what the English word means. I'm not even asking you what the Greek word means.
Kent wrote:
"I'm asking you what the English word means. I'm not even asking you what the Greek word means."
For a smart, imformative and pretty much scripturally and spirtually astute and sound leader of the church, you certainly are "going around in circles" to make some kind of point that will give an "edge" to those who have been give special knowledge, or insight because they THINK they know the Greek or use some Greek lexicon or study help to get a meaning of an OBVIOUS word!
Let me see if I can help you out using the Holy Bible without any references, dictionaries, helps, lexicons.
Comforter:
1> Root of the word "to Comfort"
2> "Come to the fort" - a place where one can come to find safety, refuge, and protected by a fence and an ENTRANCE, DOOR, GATE (John 10:7- I am the DOOR of the sheep)
3> For example, to "comfort" one implies that you would put your arms (ie, fort) around them to calm their fears.
4> First found in 2 Samuel 10:3
"Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father..."
-- To comfort one is to show kindness
Jesus Christ defines Comforter in 14:26
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
1> He IS the Holy Ghost as found ONLY in your Holy King James Bible 90 times.
2> He is a teacher of all things.
3> He is to help us remember things.
4> Spirit of truth (15:26)
5> He is the one, the Holy Ghost which shall TESTIFY of the Lord Jesus Christ.
6> He, the Holy Ghost which is the Comforter would not have come unless Jesus Christ departed.
I do not have time for a 10 page disertation of the above truths, but when reading John 14 and 15, the Comforter as the Holy Ghost will be imparted into a born-again, blood washed saint of God so that he would help the saint in all matters of scriptural doctrine and life in Jesus Christ, for when one lives unto him, he will need all the love, nuture and protection from the Lord who has "gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings" or one who protects his sheep that enter HIS DOOR(John 10) because when you become a child of God, the world that loves its own will HATE you, even unto death!
Too much more can be said, but I believe I have the Spirit of God that has lead me into all the truths stated above.
So, I will ask you now, what is your point in asking this question?
Kent, not sure if my last post made it through,
I asked you a simple question, if it would be possible for you to answer yes or no I'd appreciate it .
Do you agree there are no errors in our text of the English KJV
I understand what accurate means but this might help me to see where your at concerning the KJV
thanks T. James
T James,
Many people use "without error" in numbers of different ways. I actually asked you about the meaning of "Comforter" first, and you didn't answer it, but asked me a question instead. I answered with "accurate" for several reasons.
I believe that every Word given by God in the originals was the exact Word, even to the letter, verbal, plenary inspiration, and my view of inerrancy relates to that. I believe that God preserved every and all Words to every generation of believers -- verbal plenary preservation. Preservation means that every Word and letter are the same.
When I talk about without error, that's how I think about it. That's God's standard. If the KJV were the same level of that, then none of us would use the 1769 edition, but only the 1611, because every letter must be the same. If a change occurs, it must have been an error.
T. James, I happen to know that, for instance, in Matthew 16:25-26, in v. 25 psuchen is translated twice "life" and then in v. 26, same exact word, psuchen, identical, translated twice "soul." What if the translators translated it life all four times or soul all four times? Would that be an error? I don't believe so. However, if I'm right about where you are coming from, changing one from "life" to "soul" would be an error. I don't think it would be. So I say it is accurate, because of the "trap" that is involved there.
Do you believe there were errors in the 1611 translation? Do you use the 1769 edition?
Looking forward to your answers to these questions as well as the one I already asked.
Kent ,Sorry I didn't answer your question .
I was still waiting for your answer in regards to the question I asked you first,,,,see my second post, please allow me to repeat,
I asked you
would you have me reject a God blessed translation {produced by nt greek scholars} for one that offers criticism and contradicts the one I have ?
thanks T. James
T. James,
I thought that was rhetorical. I'm KJVO.
Kent wrote:
"Many people use "without error" in numbers of different ways. I actually asked you about the meaning of "Comforter" first, and you didn't answer it, but asked me a question instead
Therefore, since you were given the meaning of Comforter, what is your point in asking the question? I believe you already knew before you asked what and who the Comforter is, therefore your question has some "hidden agenda" that has to do with some nuance seen in the Greek, but not in the English.
Therefore, why not be forthcoming and give me an answer as to why you asked that question.
Kent, I believe God has blessed our King James Bible, I have lived long enough to watch the confusion caused by those who would undermine, correct and cast doubt upon the blessed book.
I have no problem with greek or hebrew as my bible was translated from these languages , unfortunately we live in a day and age where men feel it their duty to re-translate the original languages and it has confused not blessed the body of Christ ,
would you have me reject the comfort the KJV bible gives me ? and should I abandon it and devote myself to dead languages, and lexicons, and dead scholars in order to say that I can finally understand the word of God?
Can the Holy Spirit bear witness to the english text of the KJV ?
This is the reason I ask you
would you have me reject a God blessed translation {produced by nt greek scholars} for one that offers criticism and contradicts the one I have ?
thanks T. James
Kent also one of the definitions of the word accurate is
according to merriam-webster.com the first definition is
free from mistakes or errors
can you agree with this ?
thanks T. James
"can you agree with this ?"
Since Kent will not answer, I will give you an answer.
Yes. I can even go as far as saying that the Holy King James Bible is infallible, inerrant and without error.
These are the last of the last days and the body of Christ in America needs to stand on something that is "without controversy" as it pertains to the scriptures.
Mr. Calvas, Normally I do not comment to blogs but due to the circumstances I feel inclined to do so. First, I don't know if you are aware of this but Kent Brandenburg is a Pastor of a N.T. Baptist Church. With that in mind, my second point is that I believe repect is due here. You can choose to disagree with what others write, even to your own demise, but you can do so in a better manner. Some of your responses are very brash and disrespectful. You seem to be very familiar with the KJV Bible, so please let me remind you of a couple of things it teaches.
1. 1 Timothy 5:1- You may not have rebuked here but you certainly have not been intreating as a father.
2. 1 Timothy 5:17- Double honor here not only means financial but also respect. The man of God ought to be respected.
So, on the topic of the KJV only position, Pastor Brandenburg is pointing out that God inspired His Words in the Hebrew and the Greek languages. Those were the languages the original scriptures were written in. It has also been pointed out that the King James Version is an accurate translation of those original scriptures. Please reference 2 Peter 1:21. The men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Also Jesus said to the Apostles that He would bring into rememberance of those things He taught them. Now, may I ask, what languages were those in? Hebrew and Greek. God promised to preserve His words. He gave them in Hebrew and in Greek. The Hebrew and Greek texts are the inspired Word of God. The King James Bible is an accurate translation. We can rely on that as the Word of God. One does not NEED the Hebrew or the Greek to be saved and learn the Will of God for their lives. But, the original languages do shed light on emphasis and exact meaning on much of scripture.
Hopefully you consider these things and especially the things Pastor Brandenburg has written. He is a faithful servant of God and a Pastor in one of God's Churches. Please let's try to be more respectful of that Sir.
Paul Brownfield
Thanks Paul.
George,
And T. James,
I'm asking you what "Comforter" means in the English. I still haven't gotten that out of you. I know you are telling me that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit, but that isn't what I'm asking. Maybe you don't think you need to answer. Yes, I've got a point. It's intended to be a helpful point, but one that I'm not sure we'll get if you won't answer.
T. James,
I think I've answered the King James Translation question. I don't say that the KJV has errors, but I don't speak of a translation not having errors like I would the original text. If the original text was missing one letter that would be an error. If the KJV were held to that same standard, then it would have errors because it has been changed between 1611 and 1769. I have a different understanding of the words of the Greek text than the King James Translators had when they translated it. They made an accurate translation, but I also think that I could translate it differently and also be accurate. I'm happy to hear how that would be scripturally wrong, what I've reported to you.
Let me give you an easy example. In 1 Cor 13:8, the same word, katergeo, is translated "shall fail" and "shall vanish away." Those are two different English words translating the same Greek word. What if I translated katergeo the same both times? Prophecy shall vanish away and knowledge shall vanish away. They are the same Greek word. By the way, the same word, katergeo, is translated a third way in v. 10, same chapter, "done away." What if we translated it "vanish away" for all three? Would those be errors?
One more thing, T. James, and George too, what voice is the verb "shall vanish away" in 1 Cor 13:8? Verbs have tense, mood, voice, gender, and number. I'm simply asking you what voice it is. Thank you.
To Paul Brownfield:
Since you do not know anything about me, then rebuking me for speaking the truth because TO YOU it seemed "brash" or "disrespectful" is YOUR opinion.
Therefore, "that which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting, for "though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge".
I happen to be a saved, born-again 56 year old who has known the Lord Jesus Christ for 33 years, read his bible over 75 times, am an ordained Evangelist, an open air preacher, and started many Anabaptists churches in the last 7 years in Africa, therefore as an elder of the church of Jesus Christ, I have proven myself faithful whether you know it or not. "that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion"
Brother Kent is a faithful brother and pastor based only on what he has written since I have never met him personally. I am not ignorant of almost every argument that has been made against the inspired text of the Holy King James Bible.
Kent and many in this blog are nothing more than TR men who hold to "the Greek" as being the only inspired text. I have asked which Greek text is inspired (for there are more than 25), and I get no answer because they know that if they stood on one, they would use that text to correct the Holy Bible, for he believes the Holy King James Bible is an accurate translation, but not inspired like the Greek, yet the scriptures are clear in declaring that "all scripture is given by inspiration" and NOT limited to language.
So, how does one determine what bible in any language is inspired?
Answer: By the born-again, blood washed saints of God that "received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe". This has been true concerning the Holy King James Bible for at least 350 years
and its intrinsic power proven faithful by our fathers, has been preached and still is preached throughout the world. Therefore, neither God nor this preacher cares at all what saith the Greek unless it is used to PROVE the faithfulness of the English text, for the Holy King James Bible is an INSPIRED text and needs no correction.
So, brethren, if you are trying to "correct the English with the Greek" or say that the English text is not inspired, I will then correct you.
Dear George,
An explanation of what Greek text is perfect is here:
http://faithsaves.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/A-Declaration-of-My-Own-Position-on-the-Inspiration-and-Preservation-of-Holy-Scripture.pdf
Both Pastor Brandenburg and I have subscribed to this statement here:
http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/06/confession-of-faith-on-inspiration-and_28.html
It is unfortunate that you will speak extensively on the King James version yet you will not try to defend your false doctrine that Jesus Christ is God the Father, and yet will also not repent of that very serious heresy.
Kent wrote:
"I'm asking you what "Comforter" means in the English."
I did answer your question biblically. Do you have an issue with those truths?
"One more thing, T. James, and George too, what voice is the verb "shall vanish away" in 1 Cor 13:8?"
The only voice I know is "The voice of one crying in the wilderness... (Mark 1:3)".
The verb is Kent wrote:
"I'm asking you what "Comforter" means in the English."
I did answer your question biblically. Do you have an issue with those truths?
"One more thing, T. James, and George too, what voice is the verb "shall vanish away" in 1 Cor 13:8?"
The only voice I know is "The voice of one crying in the wilderness... (Mark 1:3)".
Since it (the knowledge) is the subject, then the verb is indicative of the active voice.
KJB1611 wrote:
"It is unfortunate that you will speak extensively on the King James version yet you will not try to defend your false doctrine that Jesus Christ is God the Father, and yet will also not repent of that very serious heresy."
Does not that section of the Articles of Faith have written above the Godhead, THE TRINITY?
Just because YOU SAY in your ignorance that Jesus Christ is God the Father, the articles of faith DO NOT make that statement.
The questions you should ask are like unto these:
How could Jesus Christ, one of the three in the Godhead be God the Father MANIFEST IN THE FLESH?
How could Jesus Christ, one of the three, be God the Father MANIFEST IN THE FLESH when he is ALSO the third person of the trinity?
In the context of all you SHOULD have read in the articles of faith, this would have shown a brother in the Lord with integrity and honest evaluation of all that is written. Just understand this, is that we believe in THE TRINITY of the Godhead. We have written it in that manner for these reasons:
1> Jesus Christ is "the seed of the Father" in that Mary was "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:18).
2> Hebrews 10:5 adds this truth speaking of the Jesus Christ, "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me".
3> Again, the scriptures speak the following in John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him".
These biblical truths form the similitude of "identical twins" where you cannot tell one from the other. That is the closeness of the Father who has begotten the Son of God, and is "in the bosom of his Father" who was the one that "prepared for him a body" making him IDENTICAL to the Father, but not the Father. The scriptures concluding that the Lord Jesus Christ is the manifest and express image of the Father (2 Corinthians 4:4 cf. Hebrews 1:1-3) in that he "is the Father MANIFEST IN THE FLESH".
Therefore, whether you understand that or not, the scriptures bare witness to the fact, "That I and the Father ARE ONE", and therefore you cannot tell them apart EXCEPT for the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ IS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.
And one more time,
Three in one, one in three, and the one in the middle died for me.
KJB1611 wrote:
"I therefore confess with
true churches, countless martyrs, and the humble and faithful people of God, that the Textus Receptus, loved, copied, printed, translated, read, memorized, meditated upon, and preached for century after century, is indeed God’s very living and holy Word, delivered miraculously from heaven, providentially and perfectly preserved, and with holy joy and wonder received by me in faith as His own living oracles in my hands."
How did you "receive this by faith"? Did you read it in both Greek and Hebrew and then believed it to the saving of your soul (Romans 10:9-10)? Did you receive it based on 1 Thessalonians 2:13, "received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."?
Please explain this.
KJB1611 wrote:
"Since no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English
translation, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the promises of God
concerning the preservation of His perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe
that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better
rendered otherwise"
There are NO ERRORS in the Holy King James Bible. I have read it over 75 times and have yet to find one.
Please provide "the errors" that you THINK are present. Once given, I will correct you and everyone else who agrees with you. But, as I have found, I will not get any two of you to even agree among yourselves on what the errors are or even agree on the corrections.
George,
How would you know an error when you saw one?
You're saying the KJB is "perfect" simply because you judge it to be?
What standard do you judge it by?
Curious,
David
d4v34x;
"How would you know an error when you saw one?"
As I have said, since I believe the scriptures, and follow the scriptures "in all manner of faith and practice", and the Holy King James Bible IS scripture...
I do not look for any errors because there are none. The only errors are found by those who just have to find an angle to exalt themselves above the word of God. Genesis 3:5 and all its consequences to fallen men, even continues today among those who are saved men:
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
They cannot live by faith and believe ANYTHING is perfect, right, infallible, exalted and needs not to be tampered with nor corrected. If they study the Greek and Hebrew (not the scriptures!), look into those lexicons, and study MEN like themselves "there eyes shall be opened" and find those "errors" in the Holy Bible and they can be AS GODS, "knowing good from evil".
So, what is my standard?
The Holy King James Bible has been the standard for over 350 years when it was recognized by the body of Christ, the church of God, preached, taught and godly men died and hazard their lives to take its truths into ALL THE WORLD! For the last 600-700 years, there has been NO GREEK OR HEBREW BIBLE that has been used "as the standard" except in the minds of lazy scholars who have NEVER ONCE taken it and preached it in the open air, started churches, hazard their lives, nor strengthened the body of Christ.
"I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say."
Kent , Your view of preservation is hard for many to swallow in light of the absence of a physical text one can hold in their hand.
The KJV translators had no such text, they used a variety of manuscript evidence and then apparently conferred one with another, and then humbly offered us their work.
I am quite aware of many typographical errors in early editions, spelling, punctuation, and minor word changes, that occurred in the first published copies
I know no one who has even remotely looked at the issue would say the authorized version is exactly the same as in 1611. Do you ?
T. James
George, when you say:
The questions you should ask are like unto these:
How could Jesus Christ, one of the three in the Godhead be God the Father MANIFEST IN THE FLESH?
How could Jesus Christ, one of the three, be God the Father MANIFEST IN THE FLESH when he is ALSO the third person of the trinity?
You show that you are not a Trinitarian. Trinitarians reject as idolatry the position that Jesus Christ is God the Father in the flesh. They believe Jesus Christ is God the Son manifest in the flesh. The Father did not become flesh, but sent His eternal Son to become flesh (John 1, 1 John 4:9, etc.)
You may use the word "Trinity," but that does not make you a Trinitarian. The ancient Arians used the word "trinity" in a positive way also, but they were not Trinitarians. Christians believe:
The Lord our God is but one only living and true God . . . in this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word (or Son), and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on Him. (London Baptist Confession of Faith, 2:1, 3).
George, Trinitarians from the first century to the 21st century have rejected the heresy that Jesus Christ is God the Father in a body. You can use the word "Trinity," but you are giving it a definition radically different from the Christian one. You are advocating modalism, and would do well to recognize that you really reject the Trinity even though you use the word.
The fact that you reject the Trinity is further evident when you say:
1> Jesus Christ is "the seed of the Father" in that Mary was "found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:18).
Jesus Christ did not become the Son of God because He came from Mary. He was and is and every shall be the eternal Son of God, as eternal as His Father is eternal, and as eternally Son as His Father is eternally Father, being eternally begotten of the Father. You take the modalist position here on the Sonship of Christ.
Of course the Father prepared a body for His eternal Son, Hebrews 10:5. But the "me" of Heb 10:5 is the Son, not the Father. The One who became flesh is God the Son, not God the Father. There is not a scrap of Scripture anywhere that teaches that God the Father became flesh. Your reference to John 1:18 proves it all the more--it is the Son who became flesh, not the Father.
Your statement that the Father and Son are "identical twins" is also heresy and unscriptural. Scripture presents the first and second Persons as Father and Son, not as identical twins, as brothers.
Yes, the Son is the image of the Father, but that actually refutes the heresy that He is the Father in the flesh. Since the Son is the Father's image, He is a distinct Person who became flesh, not the Father in the flesh.
John 10:30 teaches that the Father and the Son are one substance (Greek neuter for the word "one," not one Person (as with a masculine for "one."). The Father and the Son are two eternal Persons.
You also advocate modalism and heresy when you say that you cannot tell the Father and Son apart except for the fact that the Son became flesh. Before the Son become flesh, and in all eternity past, He was distinct from His Father by being eternally begotten by Him, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, one in essence with the Father.
George, please read the article here:
faithsaves.net/Jesus-doctrine-God-examined-Jesus-Christ-Father-Son-Holy-Spirit/
and accept the truth about who God is. Please care at least as much about who God is as about defending silly ideas like that nobody knows if the NT was written in Greek and the OT in Hebrew.
By the way, you asked earlier about churches in Greece fulfilling the Great Commission, affirming, it appears, that there were not any. A Google search reveals a number of them; I found several very easily in under 5 minutes. If you wish, you can write to, for example, Pastor Taki Koriantis at the Zakynthos Bible Baptist Church and tell him he needs to reject the Greek NT and the Textus Receptus, learn English, and read the King James so that he can have the real Word of God that the Lord failed to preserve in their language, supposedly. You can chastise him for not fulfilling the Great Commission. I even found--again very easily--a church with a Bible institute/college in Athens; you can go and preach to them to reject the TR and follow the English as well, if you wish, and tell them that they are not fulfilling the Great Commission.
By the way, I never said that I think there are errors of translation in the KJV. I said I can't be dogmatic and separate from those who believe in a perfectly preserved TR but think that there are places the English could be better, since I have no verses that say God would perfectly translate the Bible into English.
Yes, I do receive the TR by faith, as I do the KJV, and seek to live by faith in every area of my life. However, when you think that Jesus is the Father in a body, I am not especially interested in trying to discuss Ruckmanism with you. I would want you to repent of idolatry and believe in God--that is, in the Trinity--first.
There are eternally three that bear record in heaven, and only the Son became flesh, not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
Kent,
Concerning the word Comforter in John 15:26 . I believe when we search the bible and see what the Holy Spirit does in the life of a person who is indwelled by him we will see what the word Comforter means . and I personally see no reason to question the word selected by the translators.
It is a proper translation of the greek, translated by greek scholars , others have rejected their choice of words, see niv or esv or nasv..
No argument from me there, I reject these supposed better translations and I reject any attempt to undermine the text of the KJV with Greek or Hebrew,which is translated from these languages
I could give you multiple points and show the many facets in scripture how the Holy Spirit is the Comforter .. and how Jesus was a Comforter before to the disciples, is this what your looking for ?
I get the feeling your not interested, rather you wish to give new light, and ultimately cause doubt as to the validity of this word Comforter,
We both know that there are various ways to translate and there are reasons men chose one word above another, sometimes translators chose words that are questioned by others, Your questions and opinions concerning shades of meaning of greek words comes from your source information .
You read your bible and question the validity of the English words and then proceed to delve into the greek that has been hashed over multiple times.{aprox 900 english versions acording to some} We live in a day and age when men with software such as bibleworks, logos , can parrot opinions sound scholarly and cause confusion .
That’s where we are now , satan loves to confuse the saints with multiple authorities concerning truth, see Wallace or Bart.
Kent, do you honestly think satan is not behind the confusion in our society concerning the word of God? t.James
T. James,
Related to the doctrine of preservation, those who love the KJV the most will use it to come to their doctrine of preservation. If you say that you love the KJV and then pervert its understanding, you actually are not loving it. I'm not saying you don't want to know, but the Bible is for our edification, not to force into a presupposed KJV view. My support of the KJV parallels with what the KJV says about the KJV, but not more or less than that.
My whole point in asking about "Comforter" was about what did the translators mean when they translated it "Comforter." I don't think most people know what they thought it meant. When people today hear Comforter, they think of something soft and peaceful and stressless and tranquil. The translators were more tied into the Latin than us. They had their deliberations in Latin. We know that. George would hate that about them. Comforter comes from two Latin words. Com and Forte. Come means "come" and "forte" means "strength." The idea of Comforter to them was "One Who Comes with Strength." That fits what I read in the Bible about the coming of the Holy Spirit. You won't fiddle with the King James Translation. No. Instead, you'll keep telling people that Comforter means something that they didn't even mean when they translated it. You say that you don't want to study the Greek and the Hebrew. What about studying 17th century English, so that you can understand what the Translators meant, so you'll be sure to tell other people what they meant. Is that what we're supposed to do? Tell people what the KJV translators thought those Greek and Hebrew words meant?
I do believe Satan is behind the confusion. And Satan works through unscriptural doctrine. The idea that the Bible was preserved in English words, for instance. That isn't biblical.
You say there was no text from which the KJV translated? Or that we don't have that text? That really is the argument of the Critical Text men? Have you accepted it? The KJV is almost identical to BEZA 1598, and if you read Scrivener's annotated, he tells you the differences between Beza and others. It's very little. But our position has never been that. That isn't the biblical position. The right position is that God preserved the Words, which you seem not to believe by what you are writing. You are saying that there is no Greek text from which the KJV translated, i.e, it wasn't preserved. That is not biblically or historically true. And today do we have those words? Sure. We have them in printed form in Scrivener's, but they exist in many different forms besides that.
Kent,
you said Quote :
You won't fiddle with the King James Translation. No. Instead, you'll keep telling people that Comforter means something that they didn't even mean when they translated it.
Kent, could you please show me where where I keep telling people a definition of the word Comforter that the translators rejected and never meant ?
You are correct I have too much respect for the word of God to fiddle with it .
I take it your saying its right to fiddle with the KJV translation ?
T. James
Kent , you seem to be reading my mind incorrectly, I am not against understanding older English definitions ,or using dictionaries.
I am not promoting ignorance of the English language in any way.
how you come to that conclusion is hard to see .
Could you please show me where I am?
I think your over reacting to my rejection of {the greek says } correcting the bible with opinions of what the greek says.
Thats what my original post was about, not english .
T.James
T. James,
Your first comment said that men are going to have to learn the Hebrew and Greek, and they can't do that. Well, I'm saying that they're going to have to learn King James English too in certain instances. We're going to have to study, in other words. You then say that to know the Greek, you're going to have to depend on different extra-scriptural sources. Guess what? You've got to depend on that for English too. Why not look at both?
You call the languages the Bible was written in, to be "dead languages." Is English becoming a dead language, so that we don't know what that means? I'm obviously not against English, I love it, but I don't understand the opposition to looking at the Bible in the language in which it was written.
You make incredible statements, like the KJV translators couldn't hold a Greek text in their hand. Isn't that dead history? How do you know that? It's not true. I can look at Beza 1598 and see a text that is almost identical, and the other words were available to hold in their hands.
The Bible was preserved in the languages God inspired it. You seem to be saying that we don't know what that text is. That would violate the KJV.
You say I'm mindreading and yet I question the veracity of the English words. When did I do that? I said they were accurate. I asked you about three or four words to see if you understood them, and I didn't think you did. That doesn't mean retranslate, but you say, don't find out what the Greek word was from which it was translated?
T. James, it's true that I'm unhappy with the idea that we don't have the original text, that you seem to espouse, in favor of the English. It's a position against preservation. And then if someone utilizes the Greek to understand, you make that into correcting the English. It's not a defensible position. The best you have is, "It's been greatly used by God." I don't doubt that, but I don't get my doctrine from "greatly used by God."
Kent , I would ask you not to read into my written statements more than I have said.
I said : the purpose most preachers use greek &hebrew for is to question the AV , and cast doubt upon its translation of hebrew and greek, ..
1 is this an accurate statement? we are constantly hearing preachers and teachers questioning and criticizing the AV….with greek and Hebrew as their alibi ,, when in reality they are only offering an alternative translation in english…… this is either true, or false …
T. James
Kent, Also I said :
If you need to know greek to understand the kjv , then 98% of the independent baptists are in big trouble and need to either learn original tongues fluently,or confess truth is far from them, and submit to those who pull this ace out of the hole.
Kent you quote me as saying : Your first comment said that men are going to have to learn the Hebrew and Greek, and they can't do that
Kent . I Never said that either, I did say quote :
If you need to know greek to understand the kjv , then 98% of the independent baptists are in big trouble and need to either learn original tongues fluently,or confess truth is far from them
Kent , do you need to understand greek to be able to understand the KJV ?
If the answer is yes then my statement below is accurate
quote :
then 98% of the independent baptists are in big trouble and need to either learn original tongues fluently, or confess truth is far from them
I don’t think I have a problem expressing myself in my native language, of course blog debating isn’t exactly my forte . But I am trying to express in English what I’m thinking ,, not wanting to be misunderstood.
I don’t mind if you disagree or agree with my thoughts, but when you interpret and add things to written thoughts the way you do,, you really make things confusing,,
You have said a lot, but I think in order to refute your incorrect assertions of my comments I have to deal with them very slowly and one at a time.
T. James
The web address for the page refuting modalism has changed (shortened) from what I mentioned in previous posts. It is now:
http://faithsaves.net/oneness-pentecostal/
instead of:
http://faithsaves.net/jesus-doctrine-god-examined-jesus-christ-father-son-holy-spirit/
and I hope George reads it and is quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath.
Post a Comment