introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

What happened to the English speaking Christians who lived prior to the publication of KJV they must have missed this special blessing.
So you are saying that people who do not speak and read English are missing this special blessing.
Again going back to your original argument this special blessing ( KJV ) is non-biblical because it was not mentioned in the Bible.

I. First, I was talking in general about the present, because I was using the present tense, so evidently the blessing of reading and knowing the KJB is future-oriented.

II. Second, it is not my argument that something is unbiblical because it is not expressly mentioned in the Bible, but descriptive of your argument. The fact is that if a thing does not match the Bible, it is not right. I earlier mentioned that modernistic textual criticism is not mentioned in the Bible. While it isn't expressly mentioned, we may still judge things in line with the Bible:

1. Obviously it was right for a form of believing criticism to take place in recovering the correct readings and making a proper translation of the Scripture. However, modern textual criticism is incompatible with the Bible because it is based on anti-Biblical assumptions (i.e. that error is prevailing, that it is merely the work of man to recover as best as possible, etc.)

2. That modern textual criticism is indicated against in the Bible, meaning that while I said that it is not mentioned in the Bible (i.e. expressly), it is possible to find that the Bible is doctrinally against it:

Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Isa 33:18 Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

III. Third, in like manner, even though the Bible does not expressly say something like "The King James Version is good" etc. etc., there are many indications within the Scripture concerning it, particularly in line with spiritual laws, and in Bible prophecies:

1. Spiritual laws such as sowing and reaping, scattering and gathering, etc., require that the Bible future be the advanced, fully fledged formation of the inspiration seed and scattering past.

2. The indication of the Scripture is of the progress of itself, e.g. Psalm 68:11, Isaiah 34:16, etc., meaning that there must be some worthy form or entity being referred rather than a mishmash of disagreeing modern versions.

3. Prophecies, such as Revelation 10, indicate very exactly and precisely the King James Bible.

[bibleprotector]

"Verily i say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt 18.18

I know as a WOF you think this verse gives you authority over Satan and other things if you command it, but in the greek it really reads that things already bound and loosed in heaven will be done on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN if it's in God's word first as delivered from the Apostles.

Any thoughts?

There is a difference between wishful thinking (e.g. I am framing reality of the universe by me saying that the KJB is supreme) and reporting objective phenomena with spiritual understanding (e.g. various Christians recognise that the KJB is perfect and has the indications of divine approval).

[bibleprotector]

In the King James Version, there are many errors in translation from the Textus Receptus in Greek into English.

Which Textus Receptus are you referring to, as there are various differing ones, and none is perfect?

It is obvious from reading the book of Job, that Job was anything but patient!

This highlights the doctrinal dangers of going to the Greek to create false doctrines.

The Bible really shows that Job was patient:

Job 13:15 Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.

All the misdirection of going to modern versions and human opinions are not able to drown out the truth of Job's patience.

[bibleprotector]

One can find lists of words in the KJV whose meanings have changed or are archaic.

First, no word in the Bible has changed meaning. It is a myth to say that we have lost or are perplexed at the meaning of English words in the KJB.

Second, the use of the word "archaic" is emotive rather than realistic. In order for the Word of God to be communicated properly and precisely in English (i.e. sense for sense) it may require words which are unusual, like "propitiation", or a style of language that conveys more information, like using "ye" for for the subject and "you" for the object", etc.

Third, the existence of lists of so-called "archaic" words in the KJB are unreliable on several levels:
a. such lists often include words like "gospel" or "Easter".
b. such lists often contain words which are still in current use.
c. such lists often list words which are transliterations from Hebrew, which may also be found in modern versions.
d. such lists tend to contain overly simplistic, sometimes incorrect and occasionally doctrinally biased definitions.

You'll forgive me for describing such views as unusual and extra-Biblical.

Truth is not somehow merely a set of squiggles on paper. Words have meaning. Truth is the meaning of those words.

I do wonder about the majority of people on the planet who don't speak English at even a basic level, much less fluently. What is their perfect translation?

There is only one perfect translation in existence.

1. The Christians of the world did fine when there was no KJB (i.e. God's grace was sufficient).
2. The Christians of the world who do not speak English today are doing fine without the KJB (i.e. God's grace was sufficient).
3. The Christians have still had faith regardless of if they believed that the KJB was actually perfect (i.e. God's grace was sufficient).

The projection is as follows:

1. The world is speaking English more and more.
2. Christians who accept the KJB are doing better.
3. One day, by both the linguistic argument and doctrinal argument, the use of the KJB will be world wide and synonymous with the true Church.

Thus,

1. The truth of the KJB should be realised by Christians and a "natural" inclination of abandoning Greek teaching and modern versions.
2. Evangelism should begin to focus on teaching English and using the KJB.
3. Fruits follow.

[steve]

The projection is as follows:

1. The world is speaking English more and more.

But many people will never speak English, and fewer and fewer are conversant in the English of 1611. If English should someday become the universal language of all nations, it will not be English in the Elizabethan form. It will be modern English. Your suggestion that no words have changed their meaning since the KJV was translated is simply disingenuous. How is the word "trow" (Luke 17:9 KJV) used in modern English?

The word "communicate" meant "share" (as in sharing finances) in 1611 (e.g. Gal.6:6 KJV). "Communicate" does not have that meaning to modern English-speakers. It probably will never have that meaning again.

Also, the word "let" today means "to allow" or "to permit." However, in 1611, it had just the opposite meaning—"forbid," or "hinder", as in 2 Thess.2:6, 7 KJV.

2. Christians who accept the KJB are doing better.

At what? Are they being more loving than other Christians? This would be the primary measure of doing well spiritually (John 13:34-35; 1 Cor.13:1-3). They don't seem to be doing any better than other Christian movements at surviving, thriving, or multiplying themselves. In my, somewhat objective, opinion (since I love the KJV), I think the KJV-Onlyists demonstrate that they do not do well at all in the realm of biblical exegesis, historical analysis, or recognition of what is central to the Christian faith. I am interested in hearing what it is, exactly, in which they are "doing better" than other Christians.

3. One day, by both the linguistic argument and doctrinal argument, the use of the KJB will be world wide and synonymous with the true Church.

Is this a prophecy? Please give us some timeframe for fulfillment, so that we can know when it is safe to proclaim you a false prophet.

Thus,

1. The truth of the KJB should be realised by Christians and a "natural" inclination of abandoning Greek teaching and modern versions.

I recognize the truth of the KJV, as well as the truth of the Greek manuscripts and of many English translations. The truth is the same in all of them. They are the same scriptures and do not contradict each other.

2. Evangelism should begin to focus on teaching English and using the KJB.

It is very bold of you to redefine evangelism, and to change the terms of the Great Commission. It is plain that this KJV-Onlyism is distracting you from Christ and His actual commands.

3. Fruits follow.

Of course. But you have not demonstrated any reason for believing that they would be better fruits than those currently being produced. I, personally, have not had occasion to be impressed with the distinctive fruits in the lives of the KJV-Onlyists whom I have encountered.

[Candlepower]

The projection is as follows:

1. The world is speaking English more and more.
2. Christians who accept the KJB are doing better.
3. One day, by both the linguistic argument and doctrinal argument, the use of the KJB will be world wide and synonymous with the true Church.

Thus,

1. The truth of the KJB should be realised by Christians and a "natural" inclination of abandoning Greek teaching and modern versions.
2. Evangelism should begin to focus on teaching English and using the KJB.
3. Fruits follow.

Your reckoning proves that one can start with a faulty premise, use faulty reasoning, and reach a faulty conclusion. Your first point lacks accuracy. From there, your reasoning declines.

Whether the world is speaking English more and more depends on what you mean by English. All languages are in a constant state of flux. As evidence, Americans don’t talk like Britons, and Aussies sound different than Canadians. Similar and close? Yes. But among all English-speaking countries, there are differences in pronunciation, style, sentence structure, slang, etc. Go back a hundred years, and you’ll see that within each of those countries, English was different from what it is today. If you don’t think the English of today has changed and is changing, just take a look at the stuff on Facebook. Or in the newspaper. If you’ve been alive for more than a couple of decades, you’ll see that the English language is tail-spinning down. Some contend it is dying. Clearly, the English of the future won’t be the same as the English of today any more than today’s English is the same as yesteryear’s English (say 1611). Globalization and immigration are impacting all languages, but especially English. Check out this article about the rapidly growing language, “Globish.”

http://www.speechschool.tv/blog/globish ... -language/

Trying to put the the world's English language back into a King James bottle would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Or like trying to herd cats. It would take a long while, waste a lot of time, and not accomplish much.

Imagining that the world is moving toward a universal English language (or near universal) is speculation (and speculation, it seems to me, is what your theory is founded on). You presume that English will never be replaced by another "most popular" language (say, Chinese). You place your faith in slender speculations that you count as authoritative absolutes.

Proposing that the church send out missionaries to teach the people of the world to speak English so that they can learn the KJV, seems, well…absurd. I think it misses the Great Commission goal by a very long shot. In fact, I think it misses the mark completely. We are to evangelize the world. And the early church did it (they turned the world upside down) speaking mainly Greek and with nary a KJV text.

I have concluded that xenophobia is at the root of your strange KJV theory. From that starting point, it appears to me that you have searched the Scriptures to find verses that make your prejudice sound God-approved. And in your mind you have found them, thereby hardening your conviction that your error is truth.

You seem to have a higher opinion of the English language and the English-speaking world than you ought. And I think you may have a lower opinion of God’s Word than you ought. If you believe that the world should be taught proper English so that it can read the KJV, then perhaps you fail to appreciate the power of God’s spirit, Who transcends all languages.

It makes no sense to me to contend that it was okay for folks to translate from Greek to English, but it’s not acceptable to translate from KJV to, say, Swahili. To argue that we should instead train the Swahili to speak English so they can then read the King’s English seems, well...ridiculous. Your contention that we must do so because the KJV is perfect is without any sound support, scripturally or otherwise, which has been demonstrated on this forum by various writers.

You place much faith in you theological theory. I’m afraid you are a victim of you own faulty eisegesis. I’m also afraid you have a vested interest in your own error.

[bibleprotector]

But many people will never speak English

Will you be there to know? And what about the future Millennium (assuming you are either Pre- or Post-Millennial)?

and fewer and fewer are conversant in the English of 1611.

The Bible is not "stuck" in the natural mode of English of 1611, but rather is a form of language comprehensible to today. This idea that people are "conversant" seems to imply that people actually speak like the KJB in their ordinary speech, or did so in the past. Whereas, the Bible's language is unique and always has been.

If English should someday become the universal language of all nations, it will not be English in the Elizabethan form. It will be modern English.

I agree, and since the KJB is not "Elizabethan", and since the English even in Elizabethan times is designated "Modern English", it follows that the KJB certainly is comprehensible and the means by which billions of future English-speakers may be able to understand God's Word.

Your suggestion that no words have changed their meaning since the KJV was translated is simply disingenuous. How is the word "trow" (Luke 17:9 KJV) used in modern English?

How a person uses the word "trow" today (as you wrote in a previous post) and how they used it in the past, is probably the same. According to the OED it is the same.

But then, there is a difference between the KJB's use of "Biblical English" and the use of normal, every day English at any time in the past 400 years. This is because the Bible is unique, and no one speaks or writes exactly like it. However, yet, it is fully comprehensible to us, or those living 100, 200, 300 or 400 years ago. This is because it is designed to communicate the spiritual truths of the Scripture in English through its entire timeframe, which is obviously from 1611 to the Millennial reign of Christ.

The word "communicate" meant "share" (as in sharing finances) in 1611 (e.g. Gal.6:6 KJV). "Communicate" does not have that meaning to modern English-speakers. It probably will never have that meaning again.

Wrong. Communicate has a number or range of meanings. The meaning it meant in 1611 is still meant today. We still understand it today. In fact, by you even saying that the word means "share" shows that you know what that word is meaning. You say “meant”, but that is not right. What you should say is “means”, of course, people in ordinary speech today may not be always very knowledgeable of words (as may be true at any time), but people reading the Bible and acknowledging it can learn what words mean in the Bible (as if that is such a problem to the Holy Ghost!)

At what? Are they being more loving than other Christians? This would be the primary measure of doing well spiritually (John 13:34-35; 1 Cor.13:1-3). They don't seem to be doing any better than other Christian movements at surviving, thriving, or multiplying themselves. In my, somewhat objective, opinion (since I love the KJV), I think the KJV-Onlyists demonstrate that they do not do well at all in the realm of biblical exegesis, historical analysis, or recognition of what is central to the Christian faith. I am interested in hearing what it is, exactly, in which they are "doing better" than other Christians.

I think you are looking at certain KJB-onlyists, which might be like the world looking at the Pope as a Christian or looking at a few bad example Baptists as representatives of all. This is like the fallacy of “Nazis are Germans, you are a German, therefore, you are a Nazi.”

I am talking about the general fruits of using the KJB in the past, and the future fruits, I am not talking about the bad examples of some. After all, Freemasons and Mormons have both used the KJB, do we therefore reject the KJB for those reasons?

Is this a prophecy? Please give us some timeframe for fulfillment, so that we can know when it is safe to proclaim you a false prophet.

This is not a specific “prophecy”, but I suggest that it should be so in the Millennium, as KJB usage being linked with doctrinal perfection seems at the moment very far from reality.

I recognize the truth of the KJV, as well as the truth of the Greek manuscripts and of many English translations. The truth is the same in all of them. They are the same scriptures and do not contradict each other.

Sure, the truth is in Greek and in modern versions, in that the Scripture is truth. But the problem is this: where is the perfect text form? Where is the perfect translation? And where ON EARTH is it possible to have the Scripture in letter-perfect accuracy?

By identifying the KJB, it means leaving behind the Greek which is unsettled and unknown, and modern versions which are always varied and never knowing.

It is very bold of you to redefine evangelism, and to change the terms of the Great Commission.

I am talking about the way to carry out the Great Commission more effectively. Especially when it comes to being able to observe exactly what Jesus said. Thus, the use of English and having a perfect English Bible is in that way beneficial. But the Great Commission is not dependant on English or the KJB, since it was true and carried out in the past when the KJB did not exist, and is being carried out right now without the KJB being used (e.g. in foreign lands).

Of course. But you have not demonstrated any reason for believing that they would be better fruits than those currently being produced.

There is a reason to think why there are better fruits, and not because of what may or may not have been seen (of course, great denominations and missionary works were done with the KJB in the past), but because of a view of the future that the Scripture indicates, where the Gospel must advance in power, as being also indicative of the KJB.

For example, the SUCCESSFUL evangelisation of the Jews is prophesied not to take place with the Hebrew language, and since it was not accomplished by Greek in NT times (see Romans 11), it must be yet to come.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Yes, that supposedly foolish, derided King James Bible is indicated.

I, personally, have not had occasion to be impressed with the distinctive fruits in the lives of the KJV-Onlyists whom I have encountered.

The fruits of some or observed KJBOs should not be used to judge whether or not the KJB is powerful for future worldwide evangelism, when the same said KJBOs may themselves be Dispensationalists, and have quite a different view anyway to an upcoming latter day glory of the saints.

[Singalphile]

Thank you for the response to me and everyone, bibleprotector. I think it would be much better to focus on the good news of God's salvation from sin and death through Jesus Christ our Lord. The bibleprotector.com site does not seem to do so, I'm sorry to say (see the Our Great Purpose page).

[bibleprotector]

Whether the world is speaking English more and more depends on what you mean by English.

I mean absolutely, objectively a language defined as "English", regardless of whether it is in Canada or Morris Base Antarctica.

All languages are in a constant state of flux.

Only a true modernist would say that, as if relativism trumps truth. Just because there are in words and slang and so on, does not mean that evolution/chance is effecting things beyond or outside of the knowledge and control of God. After all, it was God who was there at Babel, Pentecost and is here now.

It is actually true that a person who speaks and knows English, whether in Kenya, Fiji or Buckingham Palace, can know and understand the Holy Scripture in the KJB.

Trying to put the the world's English language back into a King James bottle

The English I am typing right now is not KJB-English. And yet, if I am to quote the KJB, it is fully comprehensible. It would be foolish to deny it.

1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye 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.

Imagining that the world is moving toward a universal English language (or near universal) is speculation

The movement towards English as global is being witnessed to by various secular authorities. Anyone who observes providences would see English is going everywhere more and more.

Proposing that the church send out missionaries to teach the people of the world to speak English so that they can learn the KJV, seems, well…absurd. I think it misses the Great Commission goal by a very long shot. In fact, I think it misses the mark completely. We are to evangelize the world. And the early church did it (they turned the world upside down) speaking mainly Greek and with nary a KJV text.

Yes, of course the learning and travelling is only now at a place to really begin to be able to do it, not necessarily in history. But then, such a thing may indeed seem absurd to you, please don't be hasty, "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 Cor. 2:14).

I have concluded that xenophobia is at the root of your strange KJV theory.

Now that is absurd. Especially since all nations are of one blood as taught in the KJB. And since when is it "xenophobic" to promote the high ideal of preaching to other nations?

If you believe that the world should be taught proper English so that it can read the KJV, then perhaps you fail to appreciate the power of God’s spirit, Who transcends all languages.

And how is it you are sure that it is not the plan of God's Spirit to use English in world evangelism?

Wasn't the Reformation about actually preaching the truth in a known tongue?

What Biblical objection is there actually to using English to preach the Gospel to, say, Muslims?

To argue that we should instead train the Swahili to speak English so they can then read the King’s English seems, well...ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous. It actually makes sense.

1. Knowing English is the prerequisite to knowing the KJB.
2. Knowing the Scripture is good. It is for salvation and doctrine. Since the KJB is perfect, it means that using the KJB is good.
3. People who are growing in doctrine from Protestant traditions are English speakers, that is, us. Since we have the Gospel, we are therefore the source of preaching it. (There have been strong Christians who do not know English, and the Gospel is not restricted in English, but the best to come is in and by English.)
4. It is of economic and personal advantage to the Swahili speakers to learn English.
5. It means that the Church can become united to true doctrine, and be together around the world from all nations.

Your contention that we must do so because the KJV is perfect is without any sound support

There is no commandment that you MUST do so, I am suggesting that it seems a good way to go given the prophecies of the Scripture, in line with a spiritual assessment of divine providence.

If it were a commandment, then I should be doing it right now, but as yet, I am in an English-speaking nation where a drastic revival of the Gospel is needed.

As for the KJB being perfect, that already is an issue to people like yourself, let alone that the Great Commission commanded the conversion of whole nations.

You place much faith in you theological theory.

Really? And yet you offer no reason why such a "theory" should be impractical or not pursued. All you say is that some others have commented against it, and accuse me of xenophobia and self-serving ideas. Please demonstrate how it would be uncharitable and unedifying to bring a clear understanding of the Gospel to a nation in English. Would you ban the use of KJB national evangelism where English is already the official language? Remember that the current context is that barely small amounts of people are being currently converted by any means anyway.

[bibleprotector]

Thank you for the response to me and everyone, bibleprotector. I think it would be much better to focus on the good news of God's salvation from sin and death through Jesus Christ our Lord. The bibleprotector.com site does not seem to do so, I'm sorry to say (see the Our Great Purpose page).

Of course the Gospel is "the good news of God's salvation from sin and death through Jesus Christ our Lord." The page you reference is talking about things to do with the Gospel without actually itself containing the actual Gospel message, as in, I am talking about my website, not preaching an evangelistic message there. But then, look on forums on this website, and you will see people discussing theological issues without specifically saying "the good news of God's salvation from sin and death through Jesus Christ our Lord." This is because we are talking with Christians who already believe that. Talking about the English language in the KJB is like talking about Futurist versus Preterism. Do you also counsel all such eschatology debaters that you "think it would be much better to focus on the good news of God's salvation from sin and death through Jesus Christ our Lord"?