introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

For me, what is most odd about this scheme of things: 1) God is supposed to have waited 1,500 years or so to providentially produce this perfect translation, and 2) He is supposed to have decided to limit His purest message to one translation in one form of one language (English, of course) which most of the world has not and does not and perhaps never will understand at all or well *.

Good points and also even after the 1,600 years the great majority of people who even spoke english were illiterate plus even for the remaining few who spoke english and were literate, very few of those had access to KJV bibles for several hundred years.

So God providentially preserved his word for less then 1% of the world's population for roughly 1,700 - 1,800 years after Christ. I thought God has no partiality toward any groups of people. Apparently he is partial to white people who live in England, who were literate and who had enough money and freedom to buy a KJB

Except that these points are not made by me.

The Scripture has been sufficiently and adequately supplied throughout history.

The Scripture is pure, and has been accessed by many people in many places.

Only now, not in 1611, is there the opening up of availability of the King James Bible everywhere for all nations.

It is the modern versionist who is attacking the work of God in history, scoffing at centuries of the Bible, and claiming that the KJB has problems and errors, and stating that now, only in recent years, has there begun to be an excelling understanding via modern textual criticism, etc.

1611 bible. (Cambridge version)

The 1611 Bible was first printed in London, and there is only one version of it.

[steve7150]

Only now, not in 1611, is there the opening up of availability of the King James Bible everywhere for all nations.

It is the modern versionist who is attacking the work of God in history, scoffing at centuries of the Bible, and claiming that the KJB has problems and errors, and stating that now, only in recent years, has there begun to be an excelling understanding via modern textual criticism, etc.





No it is you who uses biblical words like "faith" and nice phrases like "spiritual understanding" and other high sounding descriptions like "God working in history"

and without an ounce of authority apply it to the KJB 1611 bible. Additionally claiming others are "scoffing at centuries of the bible" whereas it is the bible that says God is no respecter of persons, yet if the KJB 1611 is the only correct bible then God is clearly a respecter of persons according to history, with God working in it.

[bibleprotector]

No it is you who uses biblical words like "faith" and nice phrases like "spiritual understanding" and other high sounding descriptions like "God working in history"

and without an ounce of authority apply it to the KJB 1611 bible. Additionally claiming others are "scoffing at centuries of the bible" whereas it is the bible that says God is no respecter of persons, yet if the KJB 1611 is the only correct bible then God is clearly a respecter of persons according to history, with God working in it.

It appears you have written off the KJB entirely. And as for God's respect, this is who He respects:

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:35).

You are trying to make God into a communist. Of course He respects things.

[steve7150]

It appears you have written off the KJB entirely. And as for God's respect, this is who He respects:

"But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:35).

You are trying to make God into a communist. Of course He respects things.







I didn't get the communist remark until now. Your reasoning is this, because i said that the KJB 1611 bible was only available for white men , in England, who were literate and spoke English and could afford a bible, that i'm making God a communist because of my point that this bible was unavailable to 99.999% of the world population for several centuries after 1611.

That's a convincing and persuasive point that I'm making God a communist. In fact i think it's the best point you have made in this thread.

[Paidion]

Or Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).

That's Hebrew, not "Aramaic".

and said unto her, Talitha cumi — The words are Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the then language of Palestine. Mark loves to give such wonderful words just as they were spoken. See #Mr 7:34 14:36.

—Bible Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

[bibleprotector]

I didn't get the communist remark until now. Your reasoning is this, because i said that the KJB 1611 bible was only available for white men , in England, who were literate and spoke English and could afford a bible, that i'm making God a communist because of my point that this bible was unavailable to 99.999% of the world population for several centuries after 1611.

That's a convincing and persuasive point that I'm making God a communist. In fact i think it's the best point you have made in this thread.

Your willful misreading makes up things I have never said.

It is your doctrine that God should not have used one person or place and not another. Are you familiar with Isaiah 45 and Romans 9?

When I have said that the Scripture has gone through the Roman world and beyond, and into European languages and beyond, you deliberately misrepresent as if I have restricted God's Word to a mere handful of people.

And you are grossly exaggerating anyway, with your "99.999%" and other such Leftist-inspired references such as your smears of "white", "English", "literate", "rich" folk.

You infer wrong reasoning and wrong motives, much like Mark 12:13.

As for the spread of English, consider Acts 5:39.

[bibleprotector]

Or Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41).

That's Hebrew, not "Aramaic".

and said unto her, Talitha cumi — The words are Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the then language of Palestine. Mark loves to give such wonderful words just as they were spoken. See #Mr 7:34 14:36.

—Bible Commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown

Just because some people say it does not make it so.

Where does the Bible state or give an indication that "Aramaic" is being used here and elsewhere in the NT?

Why does the NT refer to the Hebrew language in various places, yet this is ignored?

[Paidion]

Just because some people say it does not make it so.

True. But "some people", if they are authorities in their field, may have more information than we.

Where does the Bible state or give an indication that "Aramaic" is being used here and elsewhere in the NT?

The writers of the Bible did not write every fact related to the events they were describing. But it is generally known that Aramaic or Chaldee was the language spoken by the Jews in the first and second century.
Modern Jews also speak a different language from Hebrew, namely "Yiddish". It is written using the Hebrew alphabet, so that we who know neither language, would be unable to determine whether a written sample was Hebrew or Yiddish unless we asked a person who was familiar with both languages. Many Othodox Jews do study Hebrew, however.

Why does the NT refer to the Hebrew language in various places, yet this is ignored?

It's not ignored. It's simply known by many that the word in the New Testament refers to the language spoke by the Jews of that day, namely Aramaic, also called "Chaldee". But the Jews continued to call that language "Hebrew".

Here is a lexical definition I found in my Online Bible for the word:

Hebrew, the Hebrew language, not that however in which the Old Testament was written but the Chaldee, which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had long superseded it in Palestine.

[john6809]

Why does the NT refer to the Hebrew language in various places, yet this is ignored?

I'm not ignoring it. I looked at all NT references to the Hebrew language, spoken or written. Interestingly, the bible explicitly states that the inscription on the cross was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Using your logic, since the NT mentions Greek and Latin, maybe Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41) is Greek or Latin.

I don't deny that Hebrew was spoken by the Jews. But none of the verses that refer to the Hebrew language declare that only Hebrew was spoken. In the previous 600 years, the Jews had been conquered by several different empires. As a result, they were scattered and they would have had to learn new languages. The same is true today. Jews living in Russia will likely speak Russian and Hebrew. Some, particularly those who had never known a time when Hebrew was the main language spoken, are likely more fluent in their other language.

Certainly, in Jesus time, there were several tongues spoken among the Hebrews and just because Aramaic is not mentioned explicitly, doesn't mean Aramaic was not the language used in the example given above.

[bibleprotector]

True. But "some people", if they are authorities in their field, may have more information than we.

Not only do you put some nineteenth century men on a pedestal, but it could be the very same argument for the rightness of the KJB.

The writers of the Bible did not write every fact related to the events they were describing. But it is generally known that Aramaic or Chaldee was the language spoken by the Jews in the first and second century.

It is generally known that most people are not active Christians or that evolution is taught as fact. Just because something is said to be generally known does not make it right. But in this case, the New Testament itself expressly says "Hebrew" and expressly does not mention "Aramaic".

Modern Jews also speak a different language from Hebrew, namely "Yiddish". It is written using the Hebrew alphabet, so that we who know neither language, would be unable to determine whether a written sample was Hebrew or Yiddish unless we asked a person who was familiar with both languages. Many Othodox Jews do study Hebrew, however.

Irrelevant, since Yiddish is known to be a Middle Ages Germanic-influenced dialect of Hebrew.

It's not ignored. It's simply known by many that the word in the New Testament refers to the language spoke by the Jews of that day, namely Aramaic, also called "Chaldee". But the Jews continued to call that language "Hebrew".

That is either merely a human, fallible hypothesis or an outright lie. When the Bible says Hebrew, it actually means Hebrew. When it says "Syriack" it actually means "Syriack". And since the people group who spoke Syriack were among those who on the day of Pentecost heard the tongues, we can again show that Syriack was not being spoken in the NT. We have so much evidence for this, that to deny that Hebrew was being used in the NT (besides Greek and Latin) is a great assault on evidence and the Biblical record.

Here is a lexical definition I found in my Online Bible for the word:

Hebrew, the Hebrew language, not that however in which the Old Testament was written but the Chaldee, which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had long superseded it in Palestine.

So, you found another misguided or false witness. Produce 20 and it still does not actually make true what the Bible does not say, imply or infer. There is simply no real evidence that Syriack was being commonly spoken by Judean Jews in the NT.

Here is the evidence:

1. Documents and common speech in Greek.
2. OT copies mainly in Hebrew.
3. Only the word "Hebrew" mentioned in the NT, not "Aramaic".
4. People from Syriack areas are included with the unknown tongues of Pentecost.
5. The people who support "Aramaic" do so on a modernistic basis, the critics are all "Aramaens".