@egwpisteuw Your incongruous attempt to claim that the German has a verse perfect in defiance of English does not even ring true by your own standards: you still present an English translation of the German translation.
Why not come clean on the issue, and admit that you do not think that Luther's Bible is perfect. It seems that you are searching for any other source to belittle the KJB because you are really biased against it.
What is the perfect standard of the original languages?
@egwpisteuw Of course the KJB is superior to Luther's translation. This is generally attested to, because those years of Reformation scholarship would quite naturally result in a better version. Also, the fact that English is widespread and that the KJB is common shows how it is better than Luther's work. This is not to deny the sufficiency of Luther's Bible, but to show God's providence with the English Authorized Version.
Do you speak any languages other than English? You seem to be coming from a very limited narrow anglocentric jingoistic viewpoint. Christianity knows no geographic, linguistic, racial, or gender bounds:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28
@egwpisteuw You do realise that there is no perfect text extant in Hebrew nor in Greek, right? Speaking English is no requisite to being born again. Christianity is unto all, but that does not contradict the fact that God used Hebrew, Greek, or the Anglo-Protestant Church. God has favoured some with great responsibility. The great commission is for NATIONAL evangelism, & Matt. 25 shows that nations are judged as sheep or goats. While personal faith is primary, nations are used in God's purposes.
@bibleprotector You do realise that there is no perfect text extant in Hebrew nor in Greek, right?
You don't even believe that the Textus Receptus used in the KJV was perfect? You do realize that was a Hebrew (and Aramiac) and Greek text and that it is extant don't you?
@egwpisteuw You do realise that there are many differing editions of the Textus Receptus: mMultiple ones from Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, besides various other editions. None is perfect. There simply is no perfect Greek NT anywhere in existence.
What we have is the perfectly gathered text in English which is based on an holistic view of these editions and other sources, including Latin, various translations, etc. The KJB text is 100% correct, unlike any Greek edition or extant ms today.
@bibleprotector ---->There simply is no perfect Greek NT anywhere in existence.
Your position makes no sense. The KJV translators went through the same process of using original language manuscripts and translating them that every Bible translation uses. The KJV is nothing special.
@egwpisteuw While a mundane view of human works may indeed be that the KJB is like any other Reformation Version, it is clear that there is a different spirit of scholarship between traditional and modern approaches to Bible translation.
Of course the KJB was made by people looking at original languages and other sources, but even the natural evidence shows how thorough the process was 1604-1611, and it is spiritually manifest that the KJB is superior & ultimately correct on every ground.
@bibleprotector ---->Of course the KJB was made by people looking at original languages and other sources, but even the natural evidence shows how thorough the process was 1604-1611, and it is spiritually manifest that the KJB is superior & ultimately correct on every ground.
But it isn't at all. When I compare the original language manuscripts they used to their translation, there are many errors and poor translations.
@egwpisteuw The reason you are seeing errors is because you have assumptions regarding the impossibility of perfection in translation; the subjective judgment of yourself, one individual millennia away from the original inspiration, which you claim to regard; & slavish view of the fractured original language manuscripts & their ongoing debates, with special regard to the outlying modernistic textual criticism, rather than the reception of truth as faithfully presented in our English standard.
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Gen 4:1
The Hebrew in the last phrase is: קניתי איש את־יהוה which means: "I have gotten a man: the Lord. Eve thought that she had born the seed promised in Gen 3:15 and that it was was the Lord. The KJV falsely supplies the word "from" which is not there and thus totally obliterates the incredible meaning of the verse.
@egwpisteuw Saying there is a “huge” mistake in the KJB is merely an emotive ploy. There is no mistake. Presenting Hebrew characters which almost no one can read and which language is the subject of various scholarly, theological and rabbinical debates is not any “authority” to now alter or undermine the English.
What is more dangerous is that subjective interpretations are read into the verse, i.e. assumptions about what Eve supposedly thought.
@bibleprotector --->To attack the word "from" destroys meaning.
There is no word "from" in the Hebrew. The KJV translators supplied it, because they did not understand what the Hebrew was saying.
My point on the Luther Bible is simply that it is a solid historical translation, just as is the KJV. Neither is inspired, and both contain errors. There are many good translations (the Dutch Statenvertaling, the Spanish Reina Valera, etc.). However, none of them are inspired.
@egwpisteuw It seems it is those who do not understand Hebrew and Greek studies properly who make the claims about the KJB “adding” or “taking away”. Where are the perfect Greek & Hebrew texts today?
The Scripture was given by inspiration & the nature of inspiration has not been lost today. Learned people are not asserting that the translators of the KJB were inspired.
The KJB has the perfect text & translation. The onus is on others to produce their inspired original languages texts.
@bibleprotector You are making two contradictory statements:
---->1. Where are the perfect Greek & Hebrew texts today?
---->2. The KJB has the perfect text & translation
If you believe #2 is true then you also must believe that the Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV translators used are perfect. Therefore, since I know Hebrew, Greek, and English, all I have to do is compare the KJV translation to the texts they used .When I do this I find numerous poor translations and errors.
@egwpisteuw Actually, it is entirely consistent to believe and show that:
1. there is a perfect English text, and
2. there is no single extant perfect Greek text manifest today.
The KJB men had no recourse to any perfect original copy, rather, they reconstructed & compiled from original language copies (e.g. TR editions) & various other sources (e.g. Latin, etc.) & formed a final perfect text in English.
You have no standard to compare the KJB to, whereas the KJB is self-consistent.
@egwpisteuw The standard is what was gathered, what was judged as complete, what resolved the difficulties of textual variations in the original languages ... the KJB therefore is a standard because it is a critical gathering of existing imperfect Greek and Hebrew copies/editions. There are many indications to show how the KJB is right in comparison to both the mass of underlying original language evidence (which was the primary source) and how the KJB resolves all the issues of sense/meanings.
@egwpisteuw You talk about comparing the KJB (which is a single unified text) with underlying original language copies. The problem is that no single one of those copies is a final standard, and that you or anyone else has not constructed a final, single authoritative standard in the original languages for either Testament to this day.
We have KJB perfection versus multiplicity, imperfection and uncertainty. Obviously the KJB position is honest, best & Scripturally consistent.
@egwpisteuw By using modernistic, unbelieving methods in utilising varying, incomplete & flawed original texts, as well as fallible, partial & subjective translation techniques, you will always find mistakes and problems everywhere with ALL Bible versions & copies, because you recognise no perfect standard but put yourself & your particular opinions taken from the certain men as the "best possible" (yet always imperfect) scheme of judging what should be the Word of God. See Romans 3:4a.
@egwpisteuw It is strange to claim to be able to compare the KJB to the original language texts that the translators used in 1611, when we do not know every last source they may have used (the authority of Scripture does not reside in such search). Since every single known Hebrew & Greek copy is admittedly in some manner flawed & certainly varying to other copies (e.g. even editions of the TR differ though they may have come from the same editor & printer), we must turn to one English Bible.
@egwpisteuw What you are doing is starting with an a priori position (excusing alcohol consumption) and then going to the Greek to justify your doctrine. What you should do is interpret the Word of God properly, and the way to do this is to study the Word spiritually and employ the usual methods of context, etc., and best grounds for such study is by using the King James Bible alone.
@bibleprotector ----->What you are doing is starting with an a priori position (excusing alcohol consumption) and then going to the Greek to justify your doctrine.
No, I am stating that Jesus turned the water into wine containing alcohol, therefore, alcohol consumption, in and of itself, is not a sin. The KJV translation does not contradict this, it merely obscures it.
@egwpisteuw Your opinion that Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine is your opinion.
Also, people would need to learn what English words mean. "Well drunken" makes it very clear that people have had a good amount of drink. You are reading into the passage other meanings and from your perspective, the KJB does not match your doctrine. What you should do is start from the received Word first, not run to the Greek to support pet doctrines.
@egwpisteuw Attempting to limit the real truth back in the difficult, varying and incomplete copies of the original languages (or back to the time of the autographs) is contradictory to the nature of the Gospel. The whole point of the Reformation was to get the Word of God in the common tongue, & the end of it is to have one common Bible for the entire planet in one language. We are seeing the outworking and providences leading to the time when the present English Bible (KJB) is for all.
Did Matthew make his own translation of the OT, and not follow the LXX?
If we assume there really was an LXX, we still know that under inspiration, the so-called variations in the NT quotes of the OT as compared to the OT must actually be the Holy Ghost's particular choices in the NT rather than the merely human presumption that Matthew was just making his own (and possibly erroneous) translation.
@egwpisteuw Thankfully, we are not perplexed by variants or Greek letters, and can read perfectly well in English today the soundly gathered text which has the traditional credibility and proper presentation, right down to the very lettering.
The English Bible very clearly has the "sh" sound in it.
To imply that the NT is deficient because the Greek does not have "sh" is, in effect, saying that even Greek inspiration was imperfect. (One shudders to think of the contempt held for English.)
---->The Bible over and again in the New Testament speaks of the Hebrew language. (The word "Aramaic" is not found in the Bible anywhere.)
Semitic languages are all very similar. The dialect spoken in Palestine in the 1st century AD was, in modern terms, a dialect of Aramaic. However, in the NT, they obviously considered it to be a dialect of Hebrew. What I can tell you is that it IS NOT Biblical Hebrew. Compare Matt 27:46 to Psalm 22:1 and you see an example of the difference.
@bibleprotector ----->But the Bible says "Hebrew", which must mean "Hebrew".
As I said, they considered it a dialect of Hebrew but in modern terms it is a dialect of Aramaic. When you know both Hebrew and Aramaic, it is very plain to see.
@egwpisteuw Clearly, you deny that the word "Hebrew" means "Hebrew". You are accusing the Bible of being incorrect.
For example, when you resort to the Greek, that has nothing at all to do with the fact that "Golgotha" is the proper English presentation, and that this word was given in Greek letters and was Hebrew.
Saying something is "Aramaic" does not make it so. I refute such magical thinking, from the Bible and science and common sense. We have "Golgotha", not some nonsense word.
@egwpisteuw I also have a question, which is, is it necessary to know Hebrew, Chaldean or Greek to know the Gospel, and does studying the English Bible only in any way limit comprehending the truth of the Scripture?
I suspect that very few people, very few Christians, very few theologians, very few scholars would know how to read, write or speak Bible Hebrew (not that many people know modern Hebrew either), let alone Chaldee. A few years of Bible College training do not really qualify.
@egwpisteuw As for knowing Bible languages, the one which matters is English. Since we have the Scripture in English, fully and perfectly, and having been tested, it follows that it is supersuccessionary to Hebrew, Syro-Chaldean and Greek.
@bibleprotector ---->As for knowing Bible languages, the one which matters is English...
That's nonsense. When you are dealing with a question which bridges four different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English) you need to know all these languages to comment intelligently. I know all four languages and I can tell you that Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti), as used in the NT, can mean either Hebrew or Aramaic. The
KJV misses this nuance, the NIV and ESV pick it up.
@egwpisteuw Actually, it is nonsense to deny the proper knowledge of Hebrew and Greek of the past which has been correctly given in the KJB, and it is unbiblical (and therefore unintelligent) to suggest that some modern version would be better. As is clear, the word "Hebrew" in our KJB as given in the NT is entirely correct, and it takes some form of equivocation or mental variation to make one clear fact "black" (i.e. "Hebrew") equal something which it is not "white (i.e. so called "Aramaic").
@egwpisteuw It contravenes the entire nature of the Church to imply that judgment cannot be sound unless it is by some hermetic knowledge. The Bible consistently instructs Christians to judge, and this is on the basis of the very fact that God is true and present and that His Word is true (why else would we have it perfectly in English?).
As for qualifications, the highest merit comes from the spirit, and that of God. A person is most right when he says that what the Bible says is right.
@bibleprotector ---->why else would we have it perfectly in English?
This is the root of the problem. You seem to be making the assumption that the KJV is inspired. It is not--no translation is inspired. This is stated in Neh 8:8:
They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
Translations can only "give the sense" of the scriptures. The inspiration is in the original languages only.
@egwpisteuw The KJB was not made by inspiration. Inspiration is a one time process. However, the nature of inspiration is retained in copies and translation. If not, then the "sense" cannot be grasped today. However, since God's words are spiritual, and since they have passed into English (despite the Catholic doctrine that argues the opposite), we do have access to the full sense today.
As for Nehemiah 8:8, proper teaching does explain Bible readings, not change the Scripture.
@egwpisteuw You seem to assume that Jewish people did not know Hebrew in the time of Nehemiah. However, there is no Biblical case for this. We know that people did learn Syriack in exile, but since the Jews retained their identity, they also retained their language. If not, their whole OT religion would have been lost to them.
Nehemiah 8:8 does not say that the Word of God was lost or inspiration was lost. Inspiration has never been lost, even in the different language of English today.
@bibleprotector ---->You seem to assume that Jewish people did not know Hebrew in the time of Nehemiah
No, they did not. This is why translation was needed. The common people lost their ability to understand Hebrew, This is why the Aramiac Targumim were written.
@egwpisteuw The Jews lost Hebrew? Even though books like Malachi were written in Hebrew, and even though common sense would say that a cultural identity and language are retained for 70 years?
The Targums are wildly different to the Bible, and may be dated quite outside the time period in question. Proper OT religion from the return of the Exile to the time of Christ was linked to Hebrew, not speculative writings.
There is no reference to "Targums" in the Bible, see Mark 7:9.
@bibleprotector ---->You are quoting the wisdom of men there. This is not the Biblical fact, this is the opinion of modern scholars.
Research Bruce Metzger. He was a top tier textual critic. Look at his list of publications. Now look at your argument. You do not know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. You are basing your position entirely on a puerile insistance that Ἐβραϊστὶ can only mean Hebrew when I have shown you that it means either Aramaic or Hebrew.
@egwpisteuw Metzger is not actually the authority as you imagine, & having accolades does not mean he is wise. In this issue of the word "Hebrew" in our English Bible meaning "Hebrew" not "Aramaic", he & you are wrong.
The Biblical & logical evidence is very clear that Hebrew was being used in the time of Christ. Unbelieving scholarship & so called weight of “professional opinion” is not the way actual Bible study works. You don’t need to know the original languages to know the truth.
@bibleprotector ---->You don’t need to know the original languages to know the truth.
I recommend you learn the languages. If you want to interact with any text, you need to do so in the language in which it was originally written. How seriously would you take someone who analyzed Shakespeare using a Chinese translation?
@egwpisteuw To imply that knowing the original languages is helpful, or even essential, for full understanding of the Gospel is grossly incorrect, in that the Holy Ghost exists outside of the original languages and is blessing and indicating the English Bible’s proliferation in time.
Since the Bible has been accurately and fully turned into English, we can rely on it. Especially since there is no perfect text extant in original languages. It is best to turn to the resolved English text.
@egwpisteuw Those who want to misdirect words and abuse Bible interpretations always need a mechanism like “going back to the originals” to do it. They do not believe God is powerful enough to have His word perfectly in English today.
While it would be limiting to study Shakespeare from Chinese, we are talking about spiritual things;---- that the Holy Ghost has caused the English Bible to transcend the variations, uncertainties & rank unbelief of modernist and original language studies today.
@egwpisteuw In the past it was correct for studies to be undertaken in the original languages. The fact that the Bible was diligently translated into English means that such things have been done, and accomplished. Why go back to the originals now that the Bible has been made, tested, tried and true in English?
New theories are invented, such as that the word "Hebrew" does not mean "Hebrew", for no other reason except what must ultimately be warned of in 2 Thess. 2:10. See also 1 Cor. 14:33.
@egwpisteuw The King James Bible is the best translation in the world. (This was known already in the 17th century.) More people have access to God's Word via English than those other languages.
There are multiple "Spanish Reina Valera" versions, and none is perfect (though the Word of God is perfect). When it comes to English however, we have a perfect representation of it in English. Furthermore, my website was the first to provide the KJB free from any typographical errors at all.
1. The perfection of the Scripture (the nature of Scripture itself, which is sufficiently present in all Bibles and copies where there is no manifest deliberate human or cultic corruption)
2. The perfection of the text, & of the translation (only the KJB have both perfect, no know perfect text exists in any extant original language edition)
3. The perfection of the presentation (only the KJB has an edition which is known to be free from typographical errors)
@egwpisteuw God's words have been sufficiently known in those other languages, however, as far as textual perfection (which readings are correct), translation perfection (what is the exact sense of the originals in the recipient language), and typographical perfection (what are the exact letters and punctuation properly) only the King James Bible in its standard edition is the full representative of God's exact Word extant in Earth. This is not to deny sufficiency and truth as present elsewhere.
@bibleprotector --->only the King James Bible in its standard edition is the full representative of God's exact Word extant in Earth
That's utterly absurd. The KJV is fraught with errors. There are many much better English translations. Also, as I have been trying to show you, the KJV is worthless to non-English speakers. The vision of the Reformers was to have a Bible in the common languages of the people translated from the inspired Hebrew/Aramic and Greek.
@egwpisteuw The KJB does not have any errors. The deceived or willingly ignorant view is that God cannot preserve His Word properly. The doctrines of men & carnal opinions will not accept the Scripturally consistent truth that God has been able to get one perfect Genesis to Revelation Bible through the Church via the hands of godly men by providential means which is the answer to all: one English translation which is sense for sense matching the very message which was first inspired.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but when you compare the KJV to the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek text that they used in the translation, they made numerous errors and poor translations.
@egwpisteuw You have an incorrect view of the authority of Scripture. Scripture exists in the present because it is received in the present.
There are many variations in the Hebrew and Greek copies and texts, so there is no final standard of appeal there. Proper judgment was made in making the KJB, which afterward was vindicated by many English Christians use, examination & approbation of it.
The KJB gives correct translations, as there are many modern divisions in meanings of passages.
@egwpisteuw There are no errors or incorrect translations in the King James Bible. Those who assert such must rely on unscriptural statements, the opinions of men and faulty logic.
E.g., there is no perfect Hebrew text, and there is no agreed upon proper translation according to the many modernists (which is why there continually many new versions). The state of confusion is directly contrasted with the fixed truth of the KJB.
Bible prophecy indicates the presence of truth at the end.
@egwpisteuw Obviously, all English translations differ to each other to some degree, but only one is perfect. There are no English translations which are better than the KJB.
While it is a fact that even plenty of English-speaking Christians are now not using the KJB, we know that God’s superintendence of history is not static, so the Spirit is working to bring about, through increasing English & spiritual outpouring, the situation where the KJB is predominantly, even universally, used.
@egwpisteuw The vision of the Reformers was to have God's very words, i.e., text, & the very meaning, i.e., translation, fully in the common tongues. Once the process was complete, and the Word perfectly presented, there would be no more need for turning back to the originals.
We are blessed that we have had all the study & trying so that we now have the Word in English, & it is designed of God to be in a language which many people know. The KJB trumps all other Reformation works.
@bibleprotector ---->The vision of the Reformers was to have God's very words, i.e., text, & the very meaning, i.e., translation, fully in the common tongues.
Yes, common tongues, plural, not tongue singular. The Bible should constantly be translated from the original languages into common languages as the need arises. The KJV is just a translation at one point in time in one language. It is nothing special and is outdated.
@egwpisteuw There is no denial that the Reformation Versions were good. But it is a fact that many Protestants did not and do not know the original languages, nor need to.
The KJB was not limited just for one period, but has endured and is as true & proper for today as ever.
The KJB has been recognised by many as being special & of great literary value, etc. The KJB continues to be common and is very easily found all over the internet. It has a very big future.
@egwpisteuw Where is the inspired Hebrew or Greek? Is it not a fact that the inspired original autographs are lost?
Where are the inspired copies? Is it not a fact that all copies in the same original languages exhibit variations, incompleteness or some sorts of blemishes?
If only the words in the original languages are inspired, why then is there power in translations?
But if translations retain the nature of inspiration, why is it wrong that one can gather correctly what all point to?
@bibleprotector ---->Where is the inspired Hebrew or Greek? Is it not a fact that the inspired original autographs are lost?
The situation today is the same as it was in 1611--only today we have 400 years of additional scholarship and manuscript discoveries which allow far better translations.
@egwpisteuw The issue is that there is no perfect Greek or Hebrew copy of either Testament, & that modern scholarship is never arriving at perfection, but compounding error & unbelief, & so continually moving further away.
The 400 years of true scholarship has shown that the KJB is right, despite the trends of some who are “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7). New manuscripts or quibbling about the original languages only serves to deny the KJB.
@egwpisteuw If the purpose of textual criticism is to have God's Words exactly today, & if perfection is God's will, why is it such a shocking thing to assert that the King James Bible actually does fulfil what today's unbelieving textual criticism attempts, and why is it so consistently implied that the KJB is apparently not the perfect demonstration of God's will as being His very words exactly and precisely, when God after all is omnipotent & has good designs for His people before the end?
@bibleprotector Also, the fact that when the NT uses Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) it often means Aramaic is recognized by some of the modern English translations:
(which in Aramaic is called Golgotha) John 19:17b NIV
which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. John 19:17b ESV
@egwpisteuw The modern English translations are quite tainted in their view on things ... including that it is very obvious even on your side that even the Greek word "hebraisti" is quite unlike the word "Aramaic".
We have a proper English translation which says that "Golgotha" is Hebrew. This is not just a "subjective" thing, it is a fact that stands up to proper reasonable scrutiny. The King James Bible is correct to state that “Golgotha” is Hebrew.
@bibleprotector ---->We have a proper English translation which says that "Golgotha" is Hebrew.
The problem is that גלגלתא (golgotha) IS NOT Hebrew for "the Skull"--it is Aramaic.
Hebrew for "the Skull" is הגלגלת (haggulgoleth). This is why the NIV and ESV translate Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) as "Aramaic" in John 19:17b. These versions supply the correct translation. Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) in Greek can mean EITHER Hebrew OR Aramaic in modern terms. I will do a video on it soon.
@egwpisteuw Your use (or pseudo-use) of Hebrew lettering is not consistent with either the Greek NT, nor the English Bible which is standard today. The assertion that "Golgotha" is Hebrew is Biblical, and based on all proper evidence. This means that either some people are mistakenly calling genuine Hebrew as "Aramaic" (which then leads them to attack the authenticity of Scripture in English and Greek), or else, there is an entire replacement of the proper original language with an impostor.
Interesting video but you are missing the mark on some key issues. Jesus and the Apostles spoke a dialect of Aramaic which is very close to Hebrew, but not the same. The contrast and similiarity can be seen in Matt 27:46:
Aramaic dialect spoken by Jesus:
אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני
Elohi, Elohi, lama shabaqtani
Biblical Hebrew:
אלי אלי למה עזבתני
Eli Eli lamah azabtani
Because of the similarity, the Aramaic dialect was called Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ (Hebrew Dialect Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) (cont)
"Jesus and the Apostles spoke a dialect of Aramaic which is very close to Hebrew, but not the same."
The Bible and scientific evidence differ to your opinion. The Bible over and again in the New Testament speaks of the Hebrew language. (The word "Aramaic" is not found in the Bible anywhere.)
Matthew 27:46 is not written in Hebrew but Greek, and is now in English. To present the words in Hebrew is of no value. What is dangerous are the changes in English.
@egwpisteuw The Bible says "Eli" not "Elohi", and "shabaqtani" is nonsensically different to "sabachthani", and it is even more far fetched to assert "azabtani".
The notion that the word "Hebrew" does not mean "Hebrew" is both unBiblical and unscientific, & also contradicts the doctrine given here: "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right" (Judges 12:6).
There is no reason to doubt the truth of the NT word “Hebrew”.
Are you talking about your guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition? I have that. Have started reading it, but probably haven't got to that section. I appreciate your work.
I have written about this area in a section of the draft of my book which you can get on the bibleprotector website. This video clip is an overview of the subject.
Luther translated Gen 4:1 perfectly:
Und Adam erkannte sein Weib Heva, und sie ward schwanger und gebar den Kain und sprach: Ich habe den Mann, den HERRN. 1.Mose 4:1
"I have the man, the Lord."
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Your incongruous attempt to claim that the German has a verse perfect in defiance of English does not even ring true by your own standards: you still present an English translation of the German translation.
Why not come clean on the issue, and admit that you do not think that Luther's Bible is perfect. It seems that you are searching for any other source to belittle the KJB because you are really biased against it.
What is the perfect standard of the original languages?
bibleprotector 1 month ago
What about Martin Luther? He wrote the Great Lutherbibel. Is the KJV superior to the Lutherbibel?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Of course the KJB is superior to Luther's translation. This is generally attested to, because those years of Reformation scholarship would quite naturally result in a better version. Also, the fact that English is widespread and that the KJB is common shows how it is better than Luther's work. This is not to deny the sufficiency of Luther's Bible, but to show God's providence with the English Authorized Version.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
Do you speak any languages other than English? You seem to be coming from a very limited narrow anglocentric jingoistic viewpoint. Christianity knows no geographic, linguistic, racial, or gender bounds:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You do realise that there is no perfect text extant in Hebrew nor in Greek, right? Speaking English is no requisite to being born again. Christianity is unto all, but that does not contradict the fact that God used Hebrew, Greek, or the Anglo-Protestant Church. God has favoured some with great responsibility. The great commission is for NATIONAL evangelism, & Matt. 25 shows that nations are judged as sheep or goats. While personal faith is primary, nations are used in God's purposes.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector You do realise that there is no perfect text extant in Hebrew nor in Greek, right?
You don't even believe that the Textus Receptus used in the KJV was perfect? You do realize that was a Hebrew (and Aramiac) and Greek text and that it is extant don't you?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You do realise that there are many differing editions of the Textus Receptus: mMultiple ones from Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza, besides various other editions. None is perfect. There simply is no perfect Greek NT anywhere in existence.
What we have is the perfectly gathered text in English which is based on an holistic view of these editions and other sources, including Latin, various translations, etc. The KJB text is 100% correct, unlike any Greek edition or extant ms today.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->There simply is no perfect Greek NT anywhere in existence.
Your position makes no sense. The KJV translators went through the same process of using original language manuscripts and translating them that every Bible translation uses. The KJV is nothing special.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw While a mundane view of human works may indeed be that the KJB is like any other Reformation Version, it is clear that there is a different spirit of scholarship between traditional and modern approaches to Bible translation.
Of course the KJB was made by people looking at original languages and other sources, but even the natural evidence shows how thorough the process was 1604-1611, and it is spiritually manifest that the KJB is superior & ultimately correct on every ground.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->Of course the KJB was made by people looking at original languages and other sources, but even the natural evidence shows how thorough the process was 1604-1611, and it is spiritually manifest that the KJB is superior & ultimately correct on every ground.
But it isn't at all. When I compare the original language manuscripts they used to their translation, there are many errors and poor translations.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The reason you are seeing errors is because you have assumptions regarding the impossibility of perfection in translation; the subjective judgment of yourself, one individual millennia away from the original inspiration, which you claim to regard; & slavish view of the fractured original language manuscripts & their ongoing debates, with special regard to the outlying modernistic textual criticism, rather than the reception of truth as faithfully presented in our English standard.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector Here is a huge mistake in the KJV:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Gen 4:1
The Hebrew in the last phrase is: קניתי איש את־יהוה which means: "I have gotten a man: the Lord. Eve thought that she had born the seed promised in Gen 3:15 and that it was was the Lord. The KJV falsely supplies the word "from" which is not there and thus totally obliterates the incredible meaning of the verse.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Saying there is a “huge” mistake in the KJB is merely an emotive ploy. There is no mistake. Presenting Hebrew characters which almost no one can read and which language is the subject of various scholarly, theological and rabbinical debates is not any “authority” to now alter or undermine the English.
What is more dangerous is that subjective interpretations are read into the verse, i.e. assumptions about what Eve supposedly thought.
To attack the word "from" destroys meaning.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector --->To attack the word "from" destroys meaning.
There is no word "from" in the Hebrew. The KJV translators supplied it, because they did not understand what the Hebrew was saying.
My point on the Luther Bible is simply that it is a solid historical translation, just as is the KJV. Neither is inspired, and both contain errors. There are many good translations (the Dutch Statenvertaling, the Spanish Reina Valera, etc.). However, none of them are inspired.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw It seems it is those who do not understand Hebrew and Greek studies properly who make the claims about the KJB “adding” or “taking away”. Where are the perfect Greek & Hebrew texts today?
The Scripture was given by inspiration & the nature of inspiration has not been lost today. Learned people are not asserting that the translators of the KJB were inspired.
The KJB has the perfect text & translation. The onus is on others to produce their inspired original languages texts.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector You are making two contradictory statements:
---->1. Where are the perfect Greek & Hebrew texts today?
---->2. The KJB has the perfect text & translation
If you believe #2 is true then you also must believe that the Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV translators used are perfect. Therefore, since I know Hebrew, Greek, and English, all I have to do is compare the KJV translation to the texts they used .When I do this I find numerous poor translations and errors.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Actually, it is entirely consistent to believe and show that:
1. there is a perfect English text, and
2. there is no single extant perfect Greek text manifest today.
The KJB men had no recourse to any perfect original copy, rather, they reconstructed & compiled from original language copies (e.g. TR editions) & various other sources (e.g. Latin, etc.) & formed a final perfect text in English.
You have no standard to compare the KJB to, whereas the KJB is self-consistent.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->You have no standard to compare the KJB...
The standard is the "orignal language copies" they used in translation, which can be compared to their translation.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The standard is what was gathered, what was judged as complete, what resolved the difficulties of textual variations in the original languages ... the KJB therefore is a standard because it is a critical gathering of existing imperfect Greek and Hebrew copies/editions. There are many indications to show how the KJB is right in comparison to both the mass of underlying original language evidence (which was the primary source) and how the KJB resolves all the issues of sense/meanings.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You talk about comparing the KJB (which is a single unified text) with underlying original language copies. The problem is that no single one of those copies is a final standard, and that you or anyone else has not constructed a final, single authoritative standard in the original languages for either Testament to this day.
We have KJB perfection versus multiplicity, imperfection and uncertainty. Obviously the KJB position is honest, best & Scripturally consistent.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw By using modernistic, unbelieving methods in utilising varying, incomplete & flawed original texts, as well as fallible, partial & subjective translation techniques, you will always find mistakes and problems everywhere with ALL Bible versions & copies, because you recognise no perfect standard but put yourself & your particular opinions taken from the certain men as the "best possible" (yet always imperfect) scheme of judging what should be the Word of God. See Romans 3:4a.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw It is strange to claim to be able to compare the KJB to the original language texts that the translators used in 1611, when we do not know every last source they may have used (the authority of Scripture does not reside in such search). Since every single known Hebrew & Greek copy is admittedly in some manner flawed & certainly varying to other copies (e.g. even editions of the TR differ though they may have come from the same editor & printer), we must turn to one English Bible.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector I just made a video of an example of how the KJV translation obscures meaning which has resulted in doctrinal error:
youtube . com/watch?v=PlQkUOPQCFk&feature=channel_video_title
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw What you are doing is starting with an a priori position (excusing alcohol consumption) and then going to the Greek to justify your doctrine. What you should do is interpret the Word of God properly, and the way to do this is to study the Word spiritually and employ the usual methods of context, etc., and best grounds for such study is by using the King James Bible alone.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ----->What you are doing is starting with an a priori position (excusing alcohol consumption) and then going to the Greek to justify your doctrine.
No, I am stating that Jesus turned the water into wine containing alcohol, therefore, alcohol consumption, in and of itself, is not a sin. The KJV translation does not contradict this, it merely obscures it.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Your opinion that Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine is your opinion.
Also, people would need to learn what English words mean. "Well drunken" makes it very clear that people have had a good amount of drink. You are reading into the passage other meanings and from your perspective, the KJB does not match your doctrine. What you should do is start from the received Word first, not run to the Greek to support pet doctrines.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Attempting to limit the real truth back in the difficult, varying and incomplete copies of the original languages (or back to the time of the autographs) is contradictory to the nature of the Gospel. The whole point of the Reformation was to get the Word of God in the common tongue, & the end of it is to have one common Bible for the entire planet in one language. We are seeing the outworking and providences leading to the time when the present English Bible (KJB) is for all.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
Did Matthew make his own translation of the OT, and not follow the LXX?
If we assume there really was an LXX, we still know that under inspiration, the so-called variations in the NT quotes of the OT as compared to the OT must actually be the Holy Ghost's particular choices in the NT rather than the merely human presumption that Matthew was just making his own (and possibly erroneous) translation.
We are dealing with God’s words, not man’s.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
----->shabaqtani" is nonsensically different to "sabachthani
Greek has no "sh" sound.
---->The Bible says "Eli" not "Elohi
There is a variant of Matt 27:46 which reads: ἐλώι ἐλώι λεμὰ σαβαχθανί (eloi eloi lema sabachthani) which is exactly what Mark 15:34 has.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Thankfully, we are not perplexed by variants or Greek letters, and can read perfectly well in English today the soundly gathered text which has the traditional credibility and proper presentation, right down to the very lettering.
The English Bible very clearly has the "sh" sound in it.
To imply that the NT is deficient because the Greek does not have "sh" is, in effect, saying that even Greek inspiration was imperfect. (One shudders to think of the contempt held for English.)
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw We know that the Bible is correct in quoting Jesus, and that the sound of the word "sabachthani" does not have "sh".
bibleprotector 1 month ago
---->The Bible over and again in the New Testament speaks of the Hebrew language. (The word "Aramaic" is not found in the Bible anywhere.)
Semitic languages are all very similar. The dialect spoken in Palestine in the 1st century AD was, in modern terms, a dialect of Aramaic. However, in the NT, they obviously considered it to be a dialect of Hebrew. What I can tell you is that it IS NOT Biblical Hebrew. Compare Matt 27:46 to Psalm 22:1 and you see an example of the difference.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw But the Bible says "Hebrew", which must mean "Hebrew".
As for Matthew's writing, it was in Greek, and we have it perfectly in English today.
The inference that one should compare the NT Greek to the OT Hebrew is not going to disprove that very clearly:
1. the NT was given in Greek,
2. it is inspiration is authentic, despite so called variations to OT passages
3. what we are observing in English is entirely the reliable presentation and sound basis for correct conclusions
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ----->But the Bible says "Hebrew", which must mean "Hebrew".
As I said, they considered it a dialect of Hebrew but in modern terms it is a dialect of Aramaic. When you know both Hebrew and Aramaic, it is very plain to see.
Let's take another example, John 19:17
ὁ λέγεται Ἑβραϊστὶ Γολγοθα,
o legetai hebraisti golgotha
which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.
Golgotha is Aramaic = גלגלתא meaning "the Skull"
In Hebrew this is הגלגלת (haggulgoleth)
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Clearly, you deny that the word "Hebrew" means "Hebrew". You are accusing the Bible of being incorrect.
For example, when you resort to the Greek, that has nothing at all to do with the fact that "Golgotha" is the proper English presentation, and that this word was given in Greek letters and was Hebrew.
Saying something is "Aramaic" does not make it so. I refute such magical thinking, from the Bible and science and common sense. We have "Golgotha", not some nonsense word.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ----->Clearly, you deny that the word "Hebrew" means "Hebrew".
Can I ask you a question? Do you know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw I also have a question, which is, is it necessary to know Hebrew, Chaldean or Greek to know the Gospel, and does studying the English Bible only in any way limit comprehending the truth of the Scripture?
I suspect that very few people, very few Christians, very few theologians, very few scholars would know how to read, write or speak Bible Hebrew (not that many people know modern Hebrew either), let alone Chaldee. A few years of Bible College training do not really qualify.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw As for knowing Bible languages, the one which matters is English. Since we have the Scripture in English, fully and perfectly, and having been tested, it follows that it is supersuccessionary to Hebrew, Syro-Chaldean and Greek.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->As for knowing Bible languages, the one which matters is English...
That's nonsense. When you are dealing with a question which bridges four different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English) you need to know all these languages to comment intelligently. I know all four languages and I can tell you that Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti), as used in the NT, can mean either Hebrew or Aramaic. The
KJV misses this nuance, the NIV and ESV pick it up.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Actually, it is nonsense to deny the proper knowledge of Hebrew and Greek of the past which has been correctly given in the KJB, and it is unbiblical (and therefore unintelligent) to suggest that some modern version would be better. As is clear, the word "Hebrew" in our KJB as given in the NT is entirely correct, and it takes some form of equivocation or mental variation to make one clear fact "black" (i.e. "Hebrew") equal something which it is not "white (i.e. so called "Aramaic").
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ----->the word "Hebrew" in our KJB as given in the NT is entirely correct
Respectfully, if you don't know the languages, you are entirely unqualified to make a judgement.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw It contravenes the entire nature of the Church to imply that judgment cannot be sound unless it is by some hermetic knowledge. The Bible consistently instructs Christians to judge, and this is on the basis of the very fact that God is true and present and that His Word is true (why else would we have it perfectly in English?).
As for qualifications, the highest merit comes from the spirit, and that of God. A person is most right when he says that what the Bible says is right.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->why else would we have it perfectly in English?
This is the root of the problem. You seem to be making the assumption that the KJV is inspired. It is not--no translation is inspired. This is stated in Neh 8:8:
They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading.
Translations can only "give the sense" of the scriptures. The inspiration is in the original languages only.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The KJB was not made by inspiration. Inspiration is a one time process. However, the nature of inspiration is retained in copies and translation. If not, then the "sense" cannot be grasped today. However, since God's words are spiritual, and since they have passed into English (despite the Catholic doctrine that argues the opposite), we do have access to the full sense today.
As for Nehemiah 8:8, proper teaching does explain Bible readings, not change the Scripture.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You seem to assume that Jewish people did not know Hebrew in the time of Nehemiah. However, there is no Biblical case for this. We know that people did learn Syriack in exile, but since the Jews retained their identity, they also retained their language. If not, their whole OT religion would have been lost to them.
Nehemiah 8:8 does not say that the Word of God was lost or inspiration was lost. Inspiration has never been lost, even in the different language of English today.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->You seem to assume that Jewish people did not know Hebrew in the time of Nehemiah
No, they did not. This is why translation was needed. The common people lost their ability to understand Hebrew, This is why the Aramiac Targumim were written.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The Jews lost Hebrew? Even though books like Malachi were written in Hebrew, and even though common sense would say that a cultural identity and language are retained for 70 years?
The Targums are wildly different to the Bible, and may be dated quite outside the time period in question. Proper OT religion from the return of the Exile to the time of Christ was linked to Hebrew, not speculative writings.
There is no reference to "Targums" in the Bible, see Mark 7:9.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector "The Targums are interpretive renderings of the books of the
Hebrew Scriptures (with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, and
Daniel) into Aramaic. Such versions were needed when Hebrew
ceased to be the normal medium of communication among the
Jews."
Bruce Metzger, IMPORTANT EARLY TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (January-March 1993) p 40.
faculty . gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/New_Testament_Greek/Text/Metzger-EarlyTranslations01-BS . pdf
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You are quoting the wisdom of men there. This is not the Biblical fact, this is the opinion of modern scholars.
The fact is that:
1. The last books of the OT were written in Hebrew,
2. The word "Aramaic" is not used in the Bible, but the word "Syriack", & "Hebrew" in the NT.
3. The word "Hebrew" in the NT really means "Hebrew".
4. Targums and other Jewish extra-Biblical sources date to various times well into early Medieval times. Extant copies are post-Christ.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->You are quoting the wisdom of men there. This is not the Biblical fact, this is the opinion of modern scholars.
Research Bruce Metzger. He was a top tier textual critic. Look at his list of publications. Now look at your argument. You do not know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. You are basing your position entirely on a puerile insistance that Ἐβραϊστὶ can only mean Hebrew when I have shown you that it means either Aramaic or Hebrew.
Give it up already!!!
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Metzger is not actually the authority as you imagine, & having accolades does not mean he is wise. In this issue of the word "Hebrew" in our English Bible meaning "Hebrew" not "Aramaic", he & you are wrong.
The Biblical & logical evidence is very clear that Hebrew was being used in the time of Christ. Unbelieving scholarship & so called weight of “professional opinion” is not the way actual Bible study works. You don’t need to know the original languages to know the truth.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->You don’t need to know the original languages to know the truth.
I recommend you learn the languages. If you want to interact with any text, you need to do so in the language in which it was originally written. How seriously would you take someone who analyzed Shakespeare using a Chinese translation?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw To imply that knowing the original languages is helpful, or even essential, for full understanding of the Gospel is grossly incorrect, in that the Holy Ghost exists outside of the original languages and is blessing and indicating the English Bible’s proliferation in time.
Since the Bible has been accurately and fully turned into English, we can rely on it. Especially since there is no perfect text extant in original languages. It is best to turn to the resolved English text.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Those who want to misdirect words and abuse Bible interpretations always need a mechanism like “going back to the originals” to do it. They do not believe God is powerful enough to have His word perfectly in English today.
While it would be limiting to study Shakespeare from Chinese, we are talking about spiritual things;---- that the Holy Ghost has caused the English Bible to transcend the variations, uncertainties & rank unbelief of modernist and original language studies today.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw In the past it was correct for studies to be undertaken in the original languages. The fact that the Bible was diligently translated into English means that such things have been done, and accomplished. Why go back to the originals now that the Bible has been made, tested, tried and true in English?
New theories are invented, such as that the word "Hebrew" does not mean "Hebrew", for no other reason except what must ultimately be warned of in 2 Thess. 2:10. See also 1 Cor. 14:33.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->Why go back to the originals now that the Bible has been made, tested, tried and true in English?
Is that true for German? Is the Lutherbibel "tried and true"?
Is that true for the French? Is the Louis Segond "tried and true"?
Is that true of the Spanish? Is the Reina Valera "tried and true"?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The King James Bible is the best translation in the world. (This was known already in the 17th century.) More people have access to God's Word via English than those other languages.
There are multiple "Spanish Reina Valera" versions, and none is perfect (though the Word of God is perfect). When it comes to English however, we have a perfect representation of it in English. Furthermore, my website was the first to provide the KJB free from any typographical errors at all.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Do not confuse these:
1. The perfection of the Scripture (the nature of Scripture itself, which is sufficiently present in all Bibles and copies where there is no manifest deliberate human or cultic corruption)
2. The perfection of the text, & of the translation (only the KJB have both perfect, no know perfect text exists in any extant original language edition)
3. The perfection of the presentation (only the KJB has an edition which is known to be free from typographical errors)
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ----->The perfection of the text, & of the translation (only the KJB have both perfect...
So French, Spanish, and German speakers who do not speak English need to learn English in order to have access to a perfect Bible?
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw God's words have been sufficiently known in those other languages, however, as far as textual perfection (which readings are correct), translation perfection (what is the exact sense of the originals in the recipient language), and typographical perfection (what are the exact letters and punctuation properly) only the King James Bible in its standard edition is the full representative of God's exact Word extant in Earth. This is not to deny sufficiency and truth as present elsewhere.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector --->only the King James Bible in its standard edition is the full representative of God's exact Word extant in Earth
That's utterly absurd. The KJV is fraught with errors. There are many much better English translations. Also, as I have been trying to show you, the KJV is worthless to non-English speakers. The vision of the Reformers was to have a Bible in the common languages of the people translated from the inspired Hebrew/Aramic and Greek.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The KJB does not have any errors. The deceived or willingly ignorant view is that God cannot preserve His Word properly. The doctrines of men & carnal opinions will not accept the Scripturally consistent truth that God has been able to get one perfect Genesis to Revelation Bible through the Church via the hands of godly men by providential means which is the answer to all: one English translation which is sense for sense matching the very message which was first inspired.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->The KJB does not have any errors.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but when you compare the KJV to the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek text that they used in the translation, they made numerous errors and poor translations.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw You have an incorrect view of the authority of Scripture. Scripture exists in the present because it is received in the present.
There are many variations in the Hebrew and Greek copies and texts, so there is no final standard of appeal there. Proper judgment was made in making the KJB, which afterward was vindicated by many English Christians use, examination & approbation of it.
The KJB gives correct translations, as there are many modern divisions in meanings of passages.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw There are no errors or incorrect translations in the King James Bible. Those who assert such must rely on unscriptural statements, the opinions of men and faulty logic.
E.g., there is no perfect Hebrew text, and there is no agreed upon proper translation according to the many modernists (which is why there continually many new versions). The state of confusion is directly contrasted with the fixed truth of the KJB.
Bible prophecy indicates the presence of truth at the end.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Obviously, all English translations differ to each other to some degree, but only one is perfect. There are no English translations which are better than the KJB.
While it is a fact that even plenty of English-speaking Christians are now not using the KJB, we know that God’s superintendence of history is not static, so the Spirit is working to bring about, through increasing English & spiritual outpouring, the situation where the KJB is predominantly, even universally, used.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The vision of the Reformers was to have God's very words, i.e., text, & the very meaning, i.e., translation, fully in the common tongues. Once the process was complete, and the Word perfectly presented, there would be no more need for turning back to the originals.
We are blessed that we have had all the study & trying so that we now have the Word in English, & it is designed of God to be in a language which many people know. The KJB trumps all other Reformation works.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->The vision of the Reformers was to have God's very words, i.e., text, & the very meaning, i.e., translation, fully in the common tongues.
Yes, common tongues, plural, not tongue singular. The Bible should constantly be translated from the original languages into common languages as the need arises. The KJV is just a translation at one point in time in one language. It is nothing special and is outdated.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw There is no denial that the Reformation Versions were good. But it is a fact that many Protestants did not and do not know the original languages, nor need to.
The KJB was not limited just for one period, but has endured and is as true & proper for today as ever.
The KJB has been recognised by many as being special & of great literary value, etc. The KJB continues to be common and is very easily found all over the internet. It has a very big future.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Where is the inspired Hebrew or Greek? Is it not a fact that the inspired original autographs are lost?
Where are the inspired copies? Is it not a fact that all copies in the same original languages exhibit variations, incompleteness or some sorts of blemishes?
If only the words in the original languages are inspired, why then is there power in translations?
But if translations retain the nature of inspiration, why is it wrong that one can gather correctly what all point to?
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->Where is the inspired Hebrew or Greek? Is it not a fact that the inspired original autographs are lost?
The situation today is the same as it was in 1611--only today we have 400 years of additional scholarship and manuscript discoveries which allow far better translations.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The issue is that there is no perfect Greek or Hebrew copy of either Testament, & that modern scholarship is never arriving at perfection, but compounding error & unbelief, & so continually moving further away.
The 400 years of true scholarship has shown that the KJB is right, despite the trends of some who are “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7). New manuscripts or quibbling about the original languages only serves to deny the KJB.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw If the purpose of textual criticism is to have God's Words exactly today, & if perfection is God's will, why is it such a shocking thing to assert that the King James Bible actually does fulfil what today's unbelieving textual criticism attempts, and why is it so consistently implied that the KJB is apparently not the perfect demonstration of God's will as being His very words exactly and precisely, when God after all is omnipotent & has good designs for His people before the end?
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector Also, the fact that when the NT uses Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) it often means Aramaic is recognized by some of the modern English translations:
(which in Aramaic is called Golgotha) John 19:17b NIV
which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. John 19:17b ESV
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The modern English translations are quite tainted in their view on things ... including that it is very obvious even on your side that even the Greek word "hebraisti" is quite unlike the word "Aramaic".
We have a proper English translation which says that "Golgotha" is Hebrew. This is not just a "subjective" thing, it is a fact that stands up to proper reasonable scrutiny. The King James Bible is correct to state that “Golgotha” is Hebrew.
It is safe to start from the KJB 1st.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector ---->We have a proper English translation which says that "Golgotha" is Hebrew.
The problem is that גלגלתא (golgotha) IS NOT Hebrew for "the Skull"--it is Aramaic.
Hebrew for "the Skull" is הגלגלת (haggulgoleth). This is why the NIV and ESV translate Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) as "Aramaic" in John 19:17b. These versions supply the correct translation. Ἐβραϊστὶ (hebraisti) in Greek can mean EITHER Hebrew OR Aramaic in modern terms. I will do a video on it soon.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw Your use (or pseudo-use) of Hebrew lettering is not consistent with either the Greek NT, nor the English Bible which is standard today. The assertion that "Golgotha" is Hebrew is Biblical, and based on all proper evidence. This means that either some people are mistakenly calling genuine Hebrew as "Aramaic" (which then leads them to attack the authenticity of Scripture in English and Greek), or else, there is an entire replacement of the proper original language with an impostor.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
(cont) and also simply Ἐβραϊστί (Hebraisti) or "Hebrew." That makes it confusing but they were in fact two different languages.
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw There is no confusion when you believe the Bible wording as is.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
Interesting video but you are missing the mark on some key issues. Jesus and the Apostles spoke a dialect of Aramaic which is very close to Hebrew, but not the same. The contrast and similiarity can be seen in Matt 27:46:
Aramaic dialect spoken by Jesus:
אלהי אלהי למא שבקתני
Elohi, Elohi, lama shabaqtani
Biblical Hebrew:
אלי אלי למה עזבתני
Eli Eli lamah azabtani
Because of the similarity, the Aramaic dialect was called Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ (Hebrew Dialect Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14) (cont)
egwpisteuw 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw (what a mouthful!)
"Jesus and the Apostles spoke a dialect of Aramaic which is very close to Hebrew, but not the same."
The Bible and scientific evidence differ to your opinion. The Bible over and again in the New Testament speaks of the Hebrew language. (The word "Aramaic" is not found in the Bible anywhere.)
Matthew 27:46 is not written in Hebrew but Greek, and is now in English. To present the words in Hebrew is of no value. What is dangerous are the changes in English.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@egwpisteuw The Bible says "Eli" not "Elohi", and "shabaqtani" is nonsensically different to "sabachthani", and it is even more far fetched to assert "azabtani".
The notion that the word "Hebrew" does not mean "Hebrew" is both unBiblical and unscientific, & also contradicts the doctrine given here: "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right" (Judges 12:6).
There is no reason to doubt the truth of the NT word “Hebrew”.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
Are you talking about your guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition? I have that. Have started reading it, but probably haven't got to that section. I appreciate your work.
thedivinelibrary 2 months ago
@thedivinelibrary thanks, yes, you will find it there.
bibleprotector 2 months ago
I have written about this area in a section of the draft of my book which you can get on the bibleprotector website. This video clip is an overview of the subject.
bibleprotector 2 months ago
Video seemed to end abruptly. Is there going to be a part two? I would like to hear more.
thedivinelibrary 2 months ago