introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

Do you think our understanding of Ancient Greek or Hebrew has improved in any way in the last 400 years?

By what do you measure "improved"? Are you saying that scholars being able to look at more Greek manuscripts today than ever before is an improvement? Are you saying that discovery of very old fragments is an "improvement"?

If the Word of God existed in Greek in the Reformation times, then there is no improvement at all. And if the Word of God has come perfectly into English, no matter how much is said about Greek, we already have what we need.

To link back to Greek as somehow a realm or arena for improvement is entirely unnecessary, since it is something barbarian to us.
Paul said, "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." (1 Cor. 14:11).

How can you improve on the Word of God having come perfectly into English by foreign scraps of papyri?

[bibleprotector]

My retort is quoted from the words of a little child:

"Your saying so don't make it so."

In making the assertion "We have His Word exactly in English", you need some sort of justification if you expect to be believed.

Are you saying we don't have God's Word in English?

Are you saying you can point to God's exact words in a perfect Hebrew and Greek Bible?

[Homer]

Paidion wrote:

Which is correct? I looked up the passage in Greek, and as far as I could translate it with my limited knowledge of Greek (I've studied it formally for only a few years), both translations of the phrase concerning equality with God, are possible renderings of the Greek. So each of the translators must have rendered the passage according to their beliefs.

Which (in red) is exactly what King James' instructions to the translators meant:

“4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.

Analogy = comparison
Faith = that which is believed

Thus translation by analogy of faith means translate the word in accordance with what we believe.

[Singalphile]

Hello again, bp.

I am curious about this:

http://www.bibleprotector.com
The Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible is God’s providentially appointed Word for the whole world which reveals the name of the Father as “Jehovah”, and the name of His Son, “Jesus”, in whom there is salvation, and the name of the “Holy Ghost” ....

What is significant about the pronunciation of those three names/words to you? Other people pronounce them differently in different languages. Do you think that matters?

Also, would you mind telling us what age you were when you came to hold your particular view and who led you to that view (about the Bible)?

These are not leading questions or anything. I am just curious.

Thank you!

[SteveF]

By what do you measure "improved"?

I simply mean a better understanding of the language, just like a person could improve their understanding of any language. So, I’ll ask again. Do you think we have a better understanding of Ancient Greek or Hebrew than we did 400 years ago?

[bibleprotector]

Hello again, bp.

I am curious about this:

http://www.bibleprotector.com
The Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible is God’s providentially appointed Word for the whole world which reveals the name of the Father as “Jehovah”, and the name of His Son, “Jesus”, in whom there is salvation, and the name of the “Holy Ghost” ....

What is significant about the pronunciation of those three names/words to you? Other people pronounce them differently in different languages. Do you think that matters?

Also, would you mind telling us what age you were when you came to hold your particular view and who led you to that view (about the Bible)?

These are not leading questions or anything. I am just curious.

Thank you!

SteveF, Hi.

Pr 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

The question is who is this person, and what is His Son's name. The answer is to go to the pure Word of God and find it.

In the KJB, it shows that God the Father is called JEHOVAH and God the Son is called Jesus (e.g. Matt. 1:21).

There is a doctrine out there, as expressed by some modern scholars, that "JEHOVAH" (or "YAHWEH") is the name for JESUS, which messes up the distinct names of the persons of the Trinity.

Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

While I am not directly suggesting that by the one pronunciation "JESUS" you will be saved, it is certainly an area to be wary of, considering the inroads of the modern day Hebrew Roots movement, and the perversion of meaning of Bible words, etc. Clearly, in other languages, people have different ways of saying "Jesus" and "Christ" and "God", that is not the issue here.

There are plenty of modern scholars who attack the name of Jehovah. Those who uphold Yahweh do so based on a modern day hypothetical reconstruction based on the lie that the Jews did not say the sacred name (of course, unbelieving Jews don't out of superstition, but look through the OT, and the name JEHOVAH is there, as well as our English form LORD). Any genuine research will show that "Yahweh" or "Yah" was the name of a heathen deity, known in various forms, such as Yahu, Yah and so on. Variations of this name can possibly be found in the Canaanite, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and beyond. This means that it wrong to call God "Yahweh".

As for your other questions, without going into great detail:

I was born in 1977. Grew up in mainstream Pentecostalism & went to a interdenominational-Calvinist school. Born again in 1992. Became Word of Faith in 1993, fully King James Only in 1999, accepted Multiple Fulfilments (i.e. added Historicism to Futurism) in 2001. The views about the KJB are taught in the Church I co-founded in the year 2000. You can read more information on my Bible Protector website.

[bibleprotector]

By what do you measure "improved"?

I simply mean a better understanding of the language, just like a person could improve their understanding of any language. So, I’ll ask again. Do you think we have a better understanding of Ancient Greek or Hebrew than we did 400 years ago?

What do you mean "we"? When you ask about "we" 400 years ago, I assume you mean Christians then. When you ask about "we" today, I assume you mean Christians today.

Modern scholars think they know better than what the people did in the past, but whether they do is another issue. The answer is that while INFORMATION has increased, modern scholarship has imposed incorrect INTERPRETATIONS on the data at hand. In that light, modern day theology has not got a better understanding of Greek and Hebrew than what was had by Christians 400 years ago, however, as far as knowledge, that has certainly increased. Sadly, we are witnessing the increase of the wrong kind of knowledge.

When the KJB translators brought from the original languages into English, they did well, and there is no reason to accept the doubts, humanistic reasoning and false accusations of modern scholarship as higher or more worthy than the Bible now at hand perfectly represented in English. It is obvious that the rejection of the KJB is completely futile, "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3:7).

[Singalphile]

Thanks, bibleprotector. You're just a couple years older than me. As for me: I've been a believer since childhood (raised in a Christian family). I've attended mostly inter-denominational (aka, "non-denominational") churches and schools my whole life. I don't recall ever meeting a KJB-only person before in real life.

Back to the topic ... Basically, when it comes to KJV-only, you're going to have to prove it. The Bible doesn't expressly teach it. There's isn't any reason why anyone should simply accept it on faith. I would need proof beyond any doubt that there must be one God-ordained, "perfect" English translation and that it is the King James translation (or the Cambridge edition of it that you hold to).

[bibleprotector]

Basically, when it comes to KJV-only, you're going to have to prove it.

Well, if you cannot accept the Scriptures on the matter, the ball is not in my court.

The Bible doesn't expressly teach it.

Remember that the words Canon, Bible, Trinity, Rapture, immersion and so on are not in the Bible. Neither are words "creed", "statement" and "denomination", yet people uphold the Canon, the Bible, the Trinity and so on, and have creeds or doctrinal statements.

There's isn't any reason why anyone should simply accept it on faith.

All proper doctrines are by faith, and your implication that somehow faith and reason are separate are incorrect.

I would need proof beyond any doubt that there must be one God-ordained, "perfect" English translation and that it is the King James translation (or the Cambridge edition of it that you hold to).

Your requirement for "proof beyond doubt" is a subjective and opinion-based method of reasoning. Atheists say the same things and they are not convinced. This is because it comes down to a willingness to accept a spiritual understanding of what the Scripture is saying. Resisting that with false parameters of what constitutes "proof" is merely doubt and unbelief.

[Singalphile]

bp,

Of course I meant that you will have to prove that the Bible teaches your view in order for me, a Christian, to accept it.