introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

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.

It cannot be Greek for the logical reason that the NT common language is Greek (i.e. what is the normal English words), and it is not Latin, which again is evident on historical, linguistic, cultural and other grounds. The fact is that Jesus spoken something important, and we are told at times that words are given in Hebrew, and since the OT was in Hebrew, and it is evidently the Jewish tongue which the Temple housed (see John 7:15) which Jesus could read.

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.

Yes, but with long ages of Hellenisation, and with the religious context of such words, and with references to the Hebrew language in the NT as expressly mentioned, it follows that "talitha cumi" would be Hebrew.

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.

There is no doubt that "Syriack" existed, but the New Testament is not pointing toward it as being used. There is every common sense reason to believe that Hebrew was known and used, yet somehow this is undermined (being nothing other than an attack on the KJB, while something like the NIV changes the word "Hebrew" to "Aramaic" to suit the modernistic agenda).

[steve7150]

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.







It's tempting not to respond to you because your answer speaks for itself and for you. None of your bible references have an ounce of relevance to the issue of KJB 1611 only. Rom 9 is simply about the fact God chose Jacob over Esau to bring the linage of Jesus through simply because he can. Of course God can do whatever he wants but he has informed us about his character and it's attributes like love,justice and mercy and he has told us he is not a respecter of persons so when he does something of significance it will be consistent with his character.

So if his word is only perfectly revealed in one bible i would expect it to be accessible to everyone or else he violates his own character. The statistics i presented were that if you were correct that would mean that less then 1% of mankind even had access to his perfect word and your response was that i must be a "leftist" or i am making God into a "communist."

It's hard to respond to this because it's so off the wall but my sister in law might be amused since she thinks i'm a part of the Christian right wing. Between you and her i'm thinking i'm doing something right.

[bibleprotector]

It's tempting not to respond to you because your answer speaks for itself and for you. None of your bible references have an ounce of relevance to the issue of KJB 1611 only. Rom 9 is simply about the fact God chose Jacob over Esau to bring the linage of Jesus through simply because he can. Of course God can do whatever he wants but he has informed us about his character and it's attributes like love,justice and mercy and he has told us he is not a respecter of persons so when he does something of significance it will be consistent with his character.

You are attempting to say that I am saying that God's Word has been somehow limited to a handful of people (which is wrong), and that apparently I am claiming that God has favoured a few rich white folks (which is wrong). But further, in claiming that God is no respector of persons, you clearly misunderstand that 1. God chose and used Hebrew people and their language, 2. that God chose and used Greek-speaking people and their language, which leads to the conclusion that there is no reason why God could not have used English... and that God's acceptance is of those who serve Him, i.e. He has used English for His purposes, not for an elite few, but for worldwide evangelism.

So if his word is only perfectly revealed in one bible i would expect it to be accessible to everyone or else he violates his own character.

Your "ifs" are not my views, and they do not follow anyway. God's Word was revealed with the prophets and apostles, so your entire point is incorrect in that I do not limit the Bible to one highly limited late version, but know that while the Scripture has been going forth everywhere, English and the accurate portrayal of God's words therein are for the nations in power reaching multitudes.

The statistics i presented were that if you were correct that would mean that less then 1% of mankind even had access to his perfect word and your response was that i must be a "leftist" or i am making God into a "communist."

You are not a leftist for wrong statistics, or even for wrongly attributing me things I do not believe, but you are a leftist because you have an unbiblical view that God is supposed to be treating everyone equally (because you keep taking out of context that He is no respector of persons), when in reality God favoured the Jews and He favours Christians and He has graciously allowed His Gospel to come forth in the Reformation rather than in the jungles somewhere, and that there is a promise that the Gospel should go into all the world, even as it has been since Pentecost.

It's hard to respond to this because it's so off the wall

You keep saying things unlike what I have said, and indeed, those things are off the wall. I am not calling you names, but showing that the belief system you are espousing seems to be this anti-patriotic anti-colonialist anti-establishment kind of stuff.

[Paidion]

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".

So if your King James Version uses the word "Hebrew" it has to mean what we mean by "Hebrew" today? Let's see how that works with other words:

Eze 24:23 And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet: ye shall not mourn nor weep; but ye shall pine away for your iniquities, and mourn one toward another.

I wear shoes on my feet every day. I know what tires are. I have four of them on my car. I sure hope I don't have to wear them on my head. But, if the King James Bible says "tires", it actually means "tires".

Job 15:26 He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers.

Hmmmm... I have had a number of jobs. I knew who my boss was. But I never heard of anyone bossing bucklers. But if the King James Bible says "bosses", it actually means "bosses".

Ps 16:7 I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.

My father used to take the family to my Grandfathers on a horse-drawn wagon (we didn't have a car). He controlled the horses with reins. Do you have any idea how these reins could intruct David the Psalmist? But if the King James Bible says "reins", it actually means "reins".

Job 18:9 The gin shall take him by the heel, and the robber shall prevail against him.

We all know that gin is an alcholic drink. I wonder how gin could take anyone by the heel? But if King James Bible says "gin", it actually means "gin".

Ac 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

I leave this one for you to ponder.

[steve7150]

ou are not a leftist for wrong statistics, or even for wrongly attributing me things I do not believe, but you are a leftist because you have an unbiblical view that God is supposed to be treating everyone equally (because you keep taking out of context that He is no respector of persons), when in reality God favoured the Jews and He favours Christians and He has graciously allowed His Gospel to come forth in the Reformation rather than in the jungles somewhere, and that there is a promise that the Gospel should go into all the world, even as it has been since Pentecost.







I don't think i said God should treat everyone equally , but that everyone should have an equal opportunity. I think that's a basic pillar of justice which is a major attribute of God. Don't our founding documents have statements like all men being created equal? Were the founding fathers communists or leftists?
As far as God favoring the jews, it was really a mixed bag in the sense it was a blessing and a burden.

[bibleprotector]

So if your King James Version uses the word "Hebrew" it has to mean what we mean by "Hebrew" today?

Actually, the word "Hebrew" in the KJB means the language of Moses/David/Isaiah. When it says "Hebrew" in the NT, it refers to that.

Let's see how that works with other words:

Eze 24:23 And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet: ye shall not mourn nor weep; but ye shall pine away for your iniquities, and mourn one toward another.

I wear shoes on my feet every day. I know what tires are. I have four of them on my car. I sure hope I don't have to wear them on my head. But, if the King James Bible says "tires", it actually means "tires".

First, you are quoting words in English, not Hebrew. Second, I have tyres not tires on my car. Third, if the KJB says "tires" it means "tires" otherwise it wouldn't have said it.

I leave this one for you to ponder.

Clearly, you are intentionally misreading words. Also, I have a booklet called "Glistering Truths" which you should look at.

[bibleprotector]

I don't think i said God should treat everyone equally , but that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

This is merely your opinion.

Don't our founding documents have statements like all men being created equal?

Not mine.

Also, why are you elevating the words of men above the Scripture?

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:I don't think i said God should treat everyone equally , but that everyone should have an equal opportunity.



This is merely your opinion.

steve7150 wrote:Don't our founding documents have statements like all men being created equal?



Not mine.

Also, why are you elevating the words of men above the Scripture?











Yes my remark about all men having an equal opportunity is my opinion about justice. When you called me a leftist or said i was making God a communist was that scripture or your opinion?

The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal. So using your reasoning if you are consistent you should label the signers of this document as "leftists."

Speaking of scripture and "opinions" and "elevating the words of men above scripture" , since there is no mention of the KJB 1611 bible in scripture , is it not your opinion that this bible is providentially directed? You claim "spiritual understanding" but that conclusion is also your opinion. In fact all the evidence you provided is really just "your opinion" and "the words of men."

This is my last post in this thread, i hope you receive real spiritual understanding.

[jriccitelli]

Steve asked; what reasons or evidence lead you to this conclusion? (Steve pg.2)

BP, you’ve gone quite a few pages, you have done well in responding to the many reasons against, but I haven’t seen you give any reason for KJO. So what would you say are the ‘best’ reasons or evidence to accept the KJO belief? (One such answer seemed to be this on pg.2)

“Also, to add to my comments, that there is a human (carnal) doctrine which says, "we cannot translate fully 100% over from one language into a receptor language". This may be a fact when considering mundane works, but we are dealing with the words of One here Who said that with him nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37). And to show that this is not a presumption, I may quote: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) (BP. Pg2. June 27)

You use a scripture, but again there is nothing that limits this to one specific translation, or even translations at all. It speaks of ‘all’ His works, we are His works also, are we perfect? Yet His way and his will that is perfect, ultimately bringing about his perfect work (nothing specifying a perfect English translation). I suppose it is a ‘carnal’ doctrine that says 2+2=4.

You back up this up with:

“So, for the entire Church in the last days there is to be one perfect Bible, which presumes that built upon this foundation that there is to be one Church, a Church which is the gathered remnant of all believers, with doctrinal roots into the Anglo-Protestant denominations” (BP pg.2 June 27)

Your ‘reason’ here seems to be found in “there is to be” but based on what? What scripture foretells this event? (It sounds like your saying the reformation is the foundation, or the restoration of the Church)

(Another such answer seemed to be this on pg.2)

The proper approach would be to believe that when God inspired, He put into motion by the very words He said, the power to ensure the gathering of His Word in the future...
Not as if the words were ever lost, but to ensure that in time a perfect form could be had of the entire Bible. Since nations are told to obey His commandments, how can they do it if we do not have full, reliable certainty of His words?... Not as if God's words are uncertain, but that there must be a perfectly and complete form to fully obey.
Pr 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?
Surely English is the means of making known, not just generally, but ultimately specifically, perfectly and fully, for complete obedience, the actual full words of God in the English language.
Not as if His Word was unable to obeyed, or untrue outside of English or before now, but rather, that it not be yet at some future time in some future dialect that the Word of God be manifestly gathered in its full textual and translational perfection, but already now at hand as the recovery answering the multiplicity of variations and uncertainties which exist in the readings and variant possible senses attributed to the original languages. (BP pg.2)

This whole paragraph seems again to be based on the presumption summed up in your words “Surely English is the means of making known…” (Surely seems to be your argument)
Like we said, all the texts agree in almost full unity. Even the most problematic translations (i.e. The NWT) cannot shake the truth of scripture, because the truth and doctrines are so interwoven into the reason, principles and story of the whole bible text. And the texts are all well supported by so many texts the truth cannot be shaken on any doctrine I have known. There is certainty in the texts of all good translations, a perfect text did not keep the Pharisees and Sadducees from getting it wrong, the truth still has to be believed. You do not have to have a perfect text to know the truth, the Bibles ‘large body’ of supportive texts make it hard to twist a doctrine just because of typos and bad translations.

Steve answered your verse references, and I would agree with Steve’s point: “Why couldn't the Latin Church have claimed, using your same arguments, that the Vulgate was the perfect and unchangeable word of God, which had been preserved and translated into the language of the Church?” BP answered:

There are those who have claimed that the Latin Vulgate was indeed the perfect standard, but the problem is that it did not match up on internal and external grounds. Externally, it was being upheld by an anti-Christian system (i.e. Romanism). Internally, it was found that there were multiple different Vulgates. Furthermore, Latin was a dying language. Therefore, on every ground, of its external circumstance and internal nature, it cannot be found to have been perfect or an enduring standard. Whereas, the King James Bible is, and is being shown self-consistently so on every ground” (BP’s response pg.3 June 28)

Again your argument begins with what we would argue is our argument not yours, and you defend your position again with; “Whereas, the King James Bible is, and is being shown self-consistently so on every ground”
Shown "self consistent on every ground", Is that your reason? On what ground?

[jriccitelli]

(on pg. 17, July 18. You responded to my request:)

A brilliant piece of human reasoning. Instead of going to the "earliest" "most reliable" copies, now you want to turn to a majority. I do not doubt that God has given man a mind to use in this way, but as soon as you put your method above the idea that God actually is providing the Word, you have created a falsehood” (BP. Pg 17)

This is 'your' human reasoning. No one here has implied or is saying ‘any’ majority of texts. I meant the oldest, most reliable, and the best-supported texts (you must have known that is what I meant since I have already alluded to this, not just any old texts, texts that have archeological and defensible supportive resources, as God enforces the demands of witnesses also). Secondly you you have created a falsehood: “…as soon as you put your method above the idea that God actually is providing the Word". We have never argued God has not provided his Word. You have put your 'method' (KJVO) above the idea that we can trust God has preserved his Word, without having one specific version being given a divine stamp of perfection, to which we have no-evidence still. You pour KJV into all belief that God has preserved his Word, we have no such specifics regarding the KJV, yet you continue to use this empty assumption. And then slander us as if we are unbelievers, or something.

You continued your argument with this:

“This reduces God's truth to trawling through extant copies in the original languages, as if the sum of present knowledge will indicate a higher percentage of truth. This, while perhaps correct broadly, should not be the guiding principle of the matter. And by making this human exercise the way by which the nearest to possibly accurate can be obtained, it instantly assumes that there can never be a fully accurate copy, for that infinite unknowns exist, including the fact that we are restricted to available and incomplete copies, and that early copies are lost”

It is hard to discern your reasoning here, but none of it means anything if you cannot provide evidence that the KJV is ‘the’ one version above the others. If you cannot do this then we can continue to trust God has indeed preserved his words in these extant manuscripts, and that there is no reason why we cannot look through them to discern the originals. We ‘are trying’ to get to the oldest originals (but age is not the only verification of the original, if it is shown to be a copy of a certain thread of copies). You make research to be something of an evil human thing. Rather, I think misapplying scripture to support a false position has a long history of evil. I do not see God denouncing study, wisdom, or searching out a matter. Rather God encourages research, gaining wisdom, demanding witness and evidence, I have never seen falsehood come about as a result of honest inquiry, witnesses, prophetic and biblical verification.
Again, why did God give us four Gospel accounts?

(You also keep making us out as if we are trying to ruin or dispel belief in the KJV, this is false. We are saying we love it, but there is no reason to hold it 'above' all other good texts or translations, as if it has some stamp of approval by God)