introducing Bible Protector

[Singalphile]

bp wrote:
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"?

You post very quickly! Your point is fair enough. I do hope that the message/truth of the gospel is you all's focus and not "further" or "farther" and "may" or "mayest".
To answer your question, given the opportunity, I think that I would say the same to an Futurist/Preterist debater in that way if his website seemed focused on little else and I ran across statements like this: "The Spirit of God does great things where Preterism is exalted." (Your site has "the King James Bible" there in place of "Preterism".)

My last thought: This KJB-only focus is perhaps a burden for you, I think, but it really is unnecessary. Thanks again for responding, though. I wish you the the best and God's blessing.

... oh, last question for anyone: Anyone know who Kenneth Huffman is or was, and why he was interested in a debate on this issue?

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:"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).







Spiritual understanding? Glad you have it brother. Anyway Youngs Literal Translation says "having been bound in heaven" Matt 18.18 , which is a dramatic difference in the translation of this important verse.

If the KJV is infallible (1611) then we can change things in heaven by binding and loosing here on earth first.

If Youngs is right then we can only pray for things to be here on earth as they already are in heaven.

What is in the original greek or can the 1611 KJV override it? What does your spiritual understanding tell you?

[bibleprotector]

... oh, last question for anyone: Anyone know who Kenneth Huffman is or was, and why he was interested in a debate on this issue?

Thanks for your thoughts. Here is my first real encounter with Kenneth Huffman: http://www.bibleprotector.com/facebook.wmv (86 MB download).

Also another video I made about him and Calvinist apologist James White: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqqzw5fGgPo

[bibleprotector]

What is in the original greek or can the 1611 KJV override it? What does your spiritual understanding tell you?

By "original" Greek, do you mean that you are comparing it with some other kind of Greek? Or by that do you mean what did the Gospel writer Matthew mean when he wrote it? Or do you mean, what did Jesus mean when He said it?

Surely, Young's is a late date construction (1879) and hardly as old as "original" Greek or the KJB.

My spiritual understanding says to accept God's words, not Young's from 1879.

[Paidion]

Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth (1 Corinthians 10:24 King James Version)

To the average English reader, this instructs us not to earn money for ourselves, but try to obtain other people's money.

In the Greek text which the King James translators used, there is no Greek word for "wealth" (nor is there in any other Greek text). The King James translators added the word. This may have had meaning for English-speaking people in the 1600s, but "wealth" has a quite different connotation today.

The New King James Version renders this verse as follows. It also adds a word, but at least their translation makes sense in today's world:

Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

So, BP, why would God want the word "wealth" used in our day, and in all future generations? Surely, He does not want to lead people astray.

No. It's not rational to use an English translation which was understood in the 1600s, but is misunderstood today. God wants to communicate His Word to people, not to hide it from them.

[bibleprotector]

Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth (1 Corinthians 10:24 King James Version)

So now we see you intentionally misreading the KJB. Next you will be saying, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (James 2:1a).

To the average English reader

So you say, but who is exactly the average English reader? Is it a saved person? Is it a person who the Holy Ghost is not helping?

So, BP, why would God want the word "wealth" used in our day, and in all future generations? Surely, He does not want to lead people astray.

I could easily ask you why you think it is not God's will or intention to communicate this proper way, but surely you would just be speculating. Unless, after all, the Bible is actually right, and He really does want us not to merely seek our own, but every man another's wealth.

It's not rational to use an English translation which was understood in the 1600s, but is misunderstood today.

What is not rational is the idea that God's Word must be misunderstood, and that its meanings are lost.

God wants to communicate His Word to people, not to hide it from them.

Which, ironically, is exactly what one would do by deleting out the word "wealth".

[Paidion]

God wants to communicate His Word to people, not to hide it from them.

Which, ironically, is exactly what one would do by deleting out the word "wealth".

Oh, really? Well let's leave it in then, and I will seek not my own, but your wealth! Are you willing to give me some of it?

[jriccitelli]

Hello BP, I had a question. Maybe you already answered it somewhere but, what if I said I felt the NASB, was divinely inspired and er, perfect? What if I believed the Elzevir Greek New Testament was divinely inspired, or say the Codex Sinaiticus, or the Codex Alexandrinus? Couldn’t someone just as easily say one of these are Gods most perfect translations?

[bibleprotector]

Hello BP, I had a question. Maybe you already answered it somewhere but, what if I said I felt the NASB, was divinely inspired and er, perfect? What if I believed the Elzevir Greek New Testament was divinely inspired, or say the Codex Sinaiticus, or the Codex Alexandrinus? Couldn’t someone just as easily say one of these are Gods most perfect translations?

It seems you are presuming that I am saying that the KJB is divinely inspired. The reality is that the original giving of the Scripture was where inspiration took place.

As for perfection of the NASV, one of the Greek NTs or a codex, such things are known to be imperfect. The Greek NT or one of the two codices you mention are not "translations", in that they are in the same language as the autographs were in.

As for saying, by wishful thinking, or by some arbitrary proclamation, that one or other copy of the Scripture is perfect is weak and foolish. There would need to be reasons from the Scripture to begin with to find a perfect regathered form of Scripture. The Scripture indicates that it is the KJB. People are not making that claim for the NASV (except out of a cynical mockery against those who say it concerning the KJB). There is a serious doctrinal position for the KJB's perfection because it is found to align on every level with the statements of Scripture, that is, that careful assessment can be made of verses which only fit the KJB as the ultimate fulfilment, and to which the NASV does not fit.

Further, on examining the philosophical basis of the NASV itself, it differs dramatically to the KJB. The KJB was made to improve upon and replace Reformation Bibles, and it stood the test of time. Whereas the NASV and other such modern translations are made with other motives and by other methods, and are not being found to stand up to testing.

[steve7150]

By "original" Greek, do you mean that you are comparing it with some other kind of Greek? Or by that do you mean what did the Gospel writer Matthew mean when he wrote it? Or do you mean, what did Jesus mean when He said it?

Surely, Young's is a late date construction (1879) and hardly as old as "original" Greek or the KJB.







Glad your spiritual understanding helped you to see what "original" Greek meant since you used it in your response. I notice you use the phrase "mean" re Matthew and Jesus instead of what Matthew actually wrote and what Jesus actually said.
So i'm guessing this "spiritual understanding" helped the writers of the KJB 1611 discern what was really meant by the bible authors. Even though the KJB 1611 translates Matt 18.18 the opposite from the "original" greek. Or the KJB 1611 translates "sheol" over and over as "grave" but later changes it's translation to "hell" seemingly arbitrarily.
Thank goodness there was no agenda and it was spiritual understanding that guided these KJB 1611 translators.