introducing Bible Protector

[SteveF]

Preservation of the Scripture means the preservation of the words, not a promise about pieces of paper

How were those words preserved if not through people faithfully writing them on paper?

[steve]

No he didn't. As the Son of God (i.e. omniscient) He obviously would know Syriack, but there is no real evidence from the NT of "Aramaic" being used.

I challenge you to prove otherwise. (The only possible thing you could say is that "Eli" is different to "Eloi", but then, in the NT, "Juda" is different to "Judah", and "Jeremy" to "Jeremias").

Or Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).

[SteveF]

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important".

There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English

[bibleprotector]

Preservation of the Scripture means the preservation of the words, not a promise about pieces of paper

How were those words preserved if not through people faithfully writing them on paper?

The words were preserved by God. Preservation is the doctrine regarding words. While I am sure that people were writing them on paper, God never promised to preserve them, and we also know that the original copies are lost. Also, there are no extant MSS that are without errors/mistakes.

[bibleprotector]

No he didn't. As the Son of God (i.e. omniscient) He obviously would know Syriack, but there is no real evidence from the NT of "Aramaic" being used.

I challenge you to prove otherwise. (The only possible thing you could say is that "Eli" is different to "Eloi", but then, in the NT, "Juda" is different to "Judah", and "Jeremy" to "Jeremias").

Or Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).

That's Hebrew, not "Aramaic".

[bibleprotector]

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important".

There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English

Yes, in other words, the importance is not on the Greek (the top comment), but that it was translated into English, so then, having it in English is important (the bottom comment).

[SteveF]

The words were preserved by God. Preservation is the doctrine regarding words.

Okay, but I ask again. How did he preserve them?

[SteveF]

You said, "Yet earlier you said it was important for them to know Greek in order to faithfully translate it". My comment that the KJB men knew Greek is simply a statement of fact, yet you are reading in that somehow I have used the word "important".

There is plenty of testimony that the KJB translators knew Hebrew and Greek very well. And that was important in order to get it properly into English

Yes, in other words, the importance is not on the Greek (the top comment), but that it was translated into English, so then, having it in English is important (the bottom comment).

Are you not saying it was important that they knew Greek in order to properly get it into English? I'm not following you.

[john6809]

Found the following on Wikipedia:

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[1] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities.

AND,

Mark 5:41
And taking the hand of the child, he said to her, "Talitha kum", which translates as, "Little girl, I say to you, get up."
This verse gives an Aramaic phrase, attributed to Jesus bringing the girl back to life, with a transliteration into Greek, as ταλιθα κουμ.

A few Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus) of Mark's Gospel have this form of the text, but others (Codex Alexandrinus, the text-type known as the Majority Text, and the Latin Vulgate) write κουμι (koumi) instead. The latter is in the Textus Receptus, and is the version that appears in the KJV.

Of course, it is a circular argument since the KJV is perfect. The other manuscripts that do not agree, must be ignored.

[Paidion]

1. Bible Greek is hardly known.
2. Modern day Greek in Greece is not the same.

Although it is true that modern Greek "is not the same" as koine Greek spoken from about 300 B.C. to about 300 A.D, this fact is irrelevant. Although a modern Greek pronounces Greek words differently, and there are some modern words which were not used in the days in which koine Greek was spoken, a modern Greek can pick up a Greek New Testament and read and understand most of it.

Modern English is not the same as medieval English (King James English), either. Yet the average English-speaking person who has not encountered it before can understand a lot of the King James Bible (certainly not all of it).