αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει
(Translated into English, the Greek text reads, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!") The complaint of an honest scribe, it was written in the margin of Rome's corrupt Codex Vaticanus at Hebrews 1:3.
The inerrant King James Bible, translated from pure texts on the other hand, is the perfect translation of the Holy Scriptures into our common language during its Golden Age.
I think you are missing the point. If an original text is perfect (the original text of the Holy Bible was perfect), translating it cannot make it more perfect. It may make it easier to understand for a wider audience but the message cannot be improved. If there is a change in the message then between the original text and the KJV through translation, this could only be a bad change even if it's been made easier to understand. I'd rather be somewhat confused by God's truth than fully understan
@NornIrishMan You say that an original text is perfect. There is no "is". There is presently no perfect New Testament in Greek. All copies differ. Textus Receptus editions differ. None is perfect.
The only perfect text, that is, set of readings, is in the King James Bible. That is the only place where every word of every reading is correct. Whether or not the KJB is a translation is beside the point, because text is entirely different to translation.
@NornIrishMan I am not saying that the King James Bible is more perfect in its message or meanings than what was originally inspired in the autographs.
But the original autographs are lost.
Moreover, as English speakers, we are not able to understand the foreign Greek or Hebrew, but English. So we are thankful that the Word of God is perfect in English.
@NornIrishMan Your opinion that changes may exist in the translation of the King James Bible is incorrect. The King James Bible translation matches conceptually sense for sense with what was originally given, and therefore, we are reading in English the exact message of God. This has nothing to do with supposed ease or difficulty of understanding, and everything to do with accuracy and knowing God's truth is available and accessible in English. We should study to understand it.
I'm a KJV only Christian myself but that's only because I am unable to speak Ancient Greek and Hebrew. Are you really suggesting that on a scale of completeness and/or reliability, a translation could exceed that of the original? Is that what you are saying or are you saying that the KJV is just as perfect as the original texts? I'd love to have a perfect English translation but as the KJV like other translations was translated by human hand, I think it would be naive to think that there won't
@NornIrishMan Speaking or reading the original languages today is not going to be superior to the King James Bible, because:
1. There are variations, divisions and uncertainties in the original language texts, even between TR editions,
2. There is debate over the exact meaning.
It is much more logical to overcome all this by turning to an English text and translation which is accessible to the whole world which has resolved all such issues.
@NornIrishMan The KJB cannot exceed the original autographs, except that it has all the books of the Canon together in one common language. But as far as content or concepts, the perfection of the Bible in English is because it is matching exactly to what God intended to communicate.
To relegate translation to a human process only is denying the operation of God's providence. The original language copies today, including TR editions, would be likewise subject to "human hands".
@NornIrishMan That "naive" view of the perfection of the King James Bible's English translated words is actually spiritually designed, see 1 Cor. ch. 2.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:13, 14).
I have heard Dr DiVietro speak on this issue before and my understanding is that he is a staunch supporter of the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible which uses the Textus Receptus. I suspect that Dr DiVietro's views have been misrepresented by this video which has been edited showing comments that are not being taken in context. I think the crux of Dr DiVietro's argument is that other English translations which don't use the Textus Receptus are inaccurate and unreliable.
@NornIrishMan I have not quoted the doctor out of context at all.
While it is certainly correct that he does support the KJV, & argues for the superiority of versions based on the TR, he is taking a view which denies the absolute perfection of the Bible in English.
Here is a broad scale, he is at number 3., I am at number 4:
@kyfan22joey Do you mean the Gospel of Matthew? It is presumptuous to claim it was written to the Jews, in that would contradict the idea in Romans 15:4, 16:26, etc.
What Matthew wrote in Greek was, of course, inspired, inerrant and perfect. Just because we do not have the autograph does not mean that it can be recompiled today in an English translation. By this I mean we have an EXACT representation of every necessary word and idea in English in our King James Bible.
@DoctrinesofGraceBapt Transgress is an English word, and your definition is in English, and I am sure quite good & acceptable. There is no need at all for original languages in Bible study: we are afforded a full supply from history of teaching and defence of the KJB's translation that we can let the matter rest. There are big problems where people go to the Hebrew & Greek today, because they end up making different translations, different definitions & different concepts to the KJB.
I went on a TR rampage a while ago (you may recall). All it did was lead me back to the multiple translations. However, I now believe that God has preserved His words in the AV. I do not know Greek, I do not need Greek. God has supplied me with His Holy Scriptures in my own tongue, perfect & without error.
@BloodBoughtChad Well, as long as you are not wavering. Some people object to some KJB readings because they are not much attested to in the Greek. They do not look holistically at evidence, including the Latin. Also, we must accept sense-for-sense translation which is not always slave to "literal" Greek. Most Christians since the Reformation have not known Greek, and God has been able to speak to them in His Word in English. We should not assume that the KJB is wrong or automatically doubt it.
@BloodBoughtChad On what basis do you say "God has supplied me with His Holy Scriptures in my own tongue, perfect & without error"? I've never understood this assertion by some with regards to particular Bible translation. What assurance do you have that the perfect English words were chosen to translate the Greek the Hebrew?
i disagree that we are not to look up what sin means in the original language that the word of God was written in, this video does no justice to the truth whatsoever, be gone with you!!
@1StandingRock It is extremely foolish to say that "sin" is defined by the original languages. Perhaps we also need to hear the Gospel in New Testament Greek in order to understand it. Yes, I am sure that people say you cannot be saved unless you use a different name than "God" or "Jesus" (which are English).
Those who attack the truth being in English are on the same side as the Roman Catholics for forbade translation of the Scripture into English.
tolar9 writes, "God does not care about Gentile nations". This is incorrect. The whole purpose of the great commission was that He wants nations to be converted. "Everything and everyone else will be destroyed!" People only have this negative view because they see so much evil today, but the Word must triumph, and at least SOME should be saved. "There's no such thing as a Xtian nation". Funny word, you mean "Christian" don't you? Why should we deny the power of the Gospel to transform nations?
Got it! Makes me even more grateful that Eng is my 1st language! BTW is there a Scriptural basis for the claim that KJB is the final form?
I'll go to your website & have another read--have to say, all the flags put me off a bit--I think Christ only cares about Israel (Physical & Spiritual)--but I support your defence of the KJB over all the antichrist modern versions. I love the TR as the Word of God, too, though...Anyway, may God bless you even more in 2011 and thanks for your kind replies!
@tolar9 Yes, the Scriptural basis is in my you tube video on "English Primacy".
I think that Christ cares for Gentiles. He explicitly commanded us to convert nations at Matt. 28:19, 20. He also told the Gentiles to convert Jews at Romans 11:31, 32.
Providence reveals that the English-speaking nations have been especially useful to God for His evangelistic purposes.
@bibleprotector Oh, sorry, wasn't suggesting the Lord doesn't care about Gentiles--just not Gentile nations. The Gentiles in His Spritual Kingdom are, I believe, Spiritual Israel, or, if you will, the Gentile Elect. He only cares about those Jews who believe in Him, or will one day believe in Him: the Jewish Elect. Physical Isreal, imo, is an earthly representation of Spiritual Israel.
Anyway, I will check out your "English Primacy" video. Thanks again!
@bibleprotector Oh. Then what was it? And, now that the KJV is around, has it been voided?
Also, if I don't understand English, and have come to faith via a translation in my language, do I still have to study English to understand the truly inspired Word of God that is the KJV?
@tolar9 The Word of God has not been voided. The KJB does not "void" other copies. Many people have been Christian without knowing the KJB, and the KJB was not made by inspiration from 1604-1611.
@bibleprotector Thanks for that. I'm still a bit confused about your contention here. I understood that the DBS was pro-KJV as it was based on the TR & Maj Txts. Is your point that the KJB is the Inspired Word of God & the TR isn't? Or that the TR cannot be understood apart from the KJB translation?
Currently, in the absence of any dispelling revelation, I believe the Inspired Word of God (NT) was given in Koine Greek because it was the best human language vehicle for it. Do you disagree?
@tolar9 DBS is TRO, so they may not accept that the KJB is the perfect final form of the received text, and they do not accept that the KJB is a 100% sense for sense translation from the original languages.
My point has nothing to do with inspiration which happened when Moses or Paul wrote. The issue is about the quality of preservation in English: Has God been able to gather His Word fully into 1 Bible or not?
The KJB is the final form of the TR. English is God's way today, not Greek.
@bibleprotector Ah, right! I get it. Thank you. I can understand that. Although I'm not sure why you say "final form", since, presumably, if He does not return within the next century or more, He might decide to choose Chinese for the next form of the TR/KJB, or Punjabi, no?
@tolar9 Final form means that the KJB is perfect, and nothing else will take its place in the future. God will not choose some other language, because English is settled as the world language.
PLEASE NOTE that I moderate most comments, and that I do not tolerate spam, profanity, false accusations, heresy, nonsense and irrelevant comments. Since I have to manually approve many comments, they do not appear instantly. This not only gives me opportunity to cast out the chaff, but to respond directly to every post (if I want to). My youtube channel (and videos) is not a debate forum, though legitimate questions can be raised, and differing issues, ideas and opinions discussed civilly.
The AV1611 cannot be CORRECTED by the original manuscripts but there are several places where it can be CLARIFIED by use of the original manuscripts. Why you would be opposed to this is beyond me. Are the Textus Receptus manuscripts not inspired?
@WorshipInTruth The TR manuscripts are not inspired. Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and others were not inspired. The words contained therein, in as much as they match the original autographs, are inspired. But there is only one book with every inspired word in it, and that happens to be an English translation.
Just so you know, I am not against the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek, nor do I prohibit understanding the Scripture by all proper and historically practiced means. But the KJB is perfect.
@bibleprotector So you admitt that the TR manuscripts are only inspired in as far as they correlate and agree with the original Gospel manuscripts as written by the Apostles. So we must come to the same conclusion with the KJB, it is only a "perfect" translation in as far as it agrees with the "original autographs" as you put it. This means it is not "perfect" simply because of its own historical merit.
@WorshipInTruth You have incorrect logic & have misunderstood me. The TR editions have inspired words in as much as their words match the original autographs. Although TR editions all have some problems, there is one final Received Text which is correct: the KJB. Internal and external examination shows it as perfect & superior to any TR edn. I know it astounds some that a translation rather than an original language copy is fully perfect, but that's the way God has done it, so don't resist Him.
@bibleprotector So, there are a few parts of Scripture which the TR is missing, well how did Erasmus rectify this? He used corrupted papist mansucripts to complete it, therefore the KJB is not "perfect" on its own merit but only in as far as it agrees with the TR. Just because it is "complete" does not make it "perfect". The Hampton Court Conference was not "perfect", while they were God fearing men and I believe moved by God, I know of at least two blatant heretics which sat on that conference.
@WorshipInTruth The KJB was made nearly 100 years after Erasmus, and there are many intervening TR editions. No TR edition is perfect. But the KJB is.
As for Hampton Court, it was not that conference which actually made the KJB. And for all the doctrinal issues we may have with either Prelacy or Puritans, the KJB was above such sectarian squabbles, being the Word of God for all English speakers, and not tied to or limited by whatever (false) accusation may be levelled at one of those men.
@bibleprotector I agree with you that the KJB is above demoninational squabbles as it is the Word of God in the English language for English speakers. But.. when you say it is "perfect" what premise do you base this on??
@WorshipInTruth The perfection of the KJB is based upon its internal merits, as well, when it is seen in light of its external circumstance.
People falsely reason that perfection must require a master copy on golden plates from heaven to compare to. But actually perfection has been wrought by the Spirit of God within the limits of history by His providence.
@bibleprotector "Actual perfection has been wrought by the Spirit of God within the limits of history". I agree with this statement also, but do you not see how the "perfection" of the KJV is the result of a continuous line of God fearing men who, at risk of life and limb, translated and preserved the Bible? We would have no KJV if it were not for the Textus Receptus, we would have no KJV if it were not for Tyndale, Erasmus, Beza, the Geneva Bible etc. etc. Give credit where it is due plz.
@WorshipInTruth You seem to be mistakenly accusing me of something I don’t believe. The KJB is the final form of the Received Text. I am just pointing out that the KJB is perfect, unlike the Textus Receptus editions. Moreover, perfection has come only because of the building upon the foundational work which came before, which includes TR editions, the Geneva Version, etc.
There would be no perfection without those things having come before. I am not withholding credit from those things.
@bibleprotector If Erasmus and Beza et. al were not inspired then how is it you claim that the KJB (based largely on their manuscripts) is a "perfect" translation? This "perfection" would not be able to occur unless God was personally involved somehow during the translation process.
The KJB 1611 IS the best English translation but this is ONLY BECAUSE it is based on the Textus Receptus [Recieved Majority Text] which is in turn based on the Byzantine Style eastern works.
@WorshipInTruth The KJB is based on a wide view of a corpus of witness testimony. The perfection of the KJB comes because of the correct gathering of text, and correct translation. Perfection does not imply God's direct inspiration in 1605-1611, but because of God's providence and work in circumstances that the KJB is right in the fullness of time, the finalising of a long process. The KJB is not only the best, but perfect. The KJB looks to the West (Latin) as well as Byzantine tradition.
@bibleprotector You say yourself that "KJB is right in the fulness of time, the finalising of a long process". I agree, but... how can you then not give full respect and credit to the Textus Receptus for its vital role in the consummation of this process?? If the very creators of the KJVB looked towards the works of people such as Erasmus and Tyndale in their creation of it then how can you deny the merit of the Textus Receptus?
@WorshipInTruth You have mistaken me. I fully appreciate the merits and virtues of both the TR and the other Protestant Bibles which came before. The KJB is the final end of all those good things. I am not anti-TR. I am saying the KJB is the best form of the Received Text.
The King James originated from the Textus Receptus, so how can they possibly not be inspired?????
There are also King James AV Bibles with mistakes in them, it is the best Bible by far around today, but checking from the original is sometimes necessary.
@theonewillcome The Textus Receptus was not made by inspiration, and the King James Bible was not made by inspiration. It is a fact that the TR editions all differ to each other, so none can be 100% matching the inspired originals. The KJB does match 100% via translation.
The KJB does not have textual or translation mistakes. There is no perfect original autographs to compare to. The KJB is a construction, it is the only finite extant form which is 100% perfect today.
@theonewillcome The Textus Receptus was not made by inspiration, but by learned men who were attempting to recover out of available evidence the original readings of Scripture. That is why there are so many editions of the Textus Receptus, and why they all differ (e.g. Erasmus' first edition does not have 1 John 5:7 as a main reading).
As for preservation, since there are no perfect compilations which were ever available, then the KJB has to be the first (& last) one to gather it fully.
@theonewillcome You should not call me your friend if you make accusations. As you should realise, I could not believe in the KJB unless God had preserved His Word to this day.
Also, inspiration is something which happened once when the autographs were made. The inspired words were then preserved, not in perfect copies, but in many INCOMPLETE and IMPERFECT ways. The TRs were attempts at recovering this, but the KJB is the one which has perfectly gathered the inspired words: so it is inspired.
That is a contradiction, the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus (received text), so how can the KJV be inspired but not the TR??? The TR was confirmed as being accurate over the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus by the Dead Sea Scrolls, God has preserved His word which was written in Greek and Hebrew!!
@theonewillcome I already showed you that the TR and the KJB were both not made by inspiration. I then showed you that no edition of the TR matches any other edition exactly, and that therefore no TR edition contains 100% the inspired words, because no known TR edition matches 100% what was first inspired. However, the KJB as an evaluation of readings and by accurate translation is actually presenting 100% the inspired words because the KJB is the final form of the Received Text.
@theonewillcome While God preserved His Word in the original langauges, He did not limit preservation to the original languages. Moreover, you have the problem of not having a perfect copy of the Scripture of either Testament today. Where is the perfect Greek NT? The perfect Hebrew OT?
Since there is none, it therefore follows that the one Bible which fully gathers the text is also an English translation.
Thus, only the KJB has 100% inspired words, unlike any TR or Bomberg Hebrew edition.
The English words in the KJV came from the received texts, they still have root from where they originated, you are saying don't go to the origin, when the origin gives us clearer understanding, like I have proved to you!!
Believe what you will, but you will be held accountable if you cause others to be deceived.
Look my friend, I'm no universtity graduate, but God in His infinite wisdom granted me a brain which is in good working order, now let's get this right, in order for a word to be placed in the KJV, it has to have a source from whence that word came, you cannot just put a word in out of thin air, therefore every word in the KJV has a root source, it matters not that it comes from several manuscripts, it still has a root!
@theonewillcome Yes, the KJB gathered from various sources, but there is a correct root: the original autographs. By what you are saying you should realise that the TR is inferior to the KJB, because it is only the KJB which has all the readings together correctly..
Now a Strongs Concordance for instance is based upon the KJV, therefore all the words in the KJV originate from the Greek and Hebrew words in a Strongs, it is their root source. Now over time some words have been mistranslated, for instance Zech 11:17 says Idol Shepherd, speaking about the Pope, but in some KJV it says "Idle" which is a mistranslation, the only way to know for sure is to go to the root.
@theonewillcome Your logic is back to front. If the Strongs is based on the KJB, what is the need for going to the Hebrew from English, when we have the English. Anyway, the Strongs has definitions which are against the KJB.
If we start from the KJB, and we see "idol shepherd" at Zech. 11:17, we should trust the KJB without having to go to the Hebrew to justfy something, or make false accusations about the KJB.
The KJB says "idol" not "idle", so your point is wrong anyway.
My point is not wrong, I have 2 KJV's one says Idle and the other says Idol, I know which one is correct because my concordance tells me and it doesn't matter how many manuscripts were used to make the KJV, the word that was translated into English is the root word, now either it is the correct Greek and Hebrew word from the texts or the English is wrong, now which is it?
@theonewillcome So you admit that the KJB does have "idol". You don't need to look at a lexicon as the final authority to prove which edition is correct. In fact, there is a simple process for doing so without reference to the original languages. A clue: See my website.
@theonewillcome As for Strongs, it disagrees with the KJB every time it gives a definition which counters the translation of the KJB. Some of its interpretations are wrong. Its pronunciations are suspect. It does not give a full or whole picture of the actual underlying textual basis of the KJB.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
@theonewillcome for ever and ever means exactly what it says. Why define the concept clearly and plainly given by English words with other definitions with other English words? There is no doctrine which can be disestablished from the King James Bible by turning to the original languages. In teaching, we would say that this passage means continually, eternally, on and on.
@theonewillcome Actually, I believe that hell as we know it is only temporary. It gets thrown into the eternal lake of fire.
The reason why people go there is because their works come from a corrupt heart.
If someone says that the Bible does not teach eternal damnation, then they are not believing the real Bible, but doubtless changing doctrines by "going to the Greek".
I don't doubt eternal damnation, I am asking you what that punishment is, is their a Lake of Fire that Burns people for ever and ever as you understand it?
The following response was deleted off because it contained heresy that damnation is not eternal. Here is a quote from the deleted post from "theonewillcome" showing his heresy, and how he must defy the KJB to state his false view:
"So by reading "for ever and ever" it does not give a true understanding, it actually means an unspecified period of time, they burn until nothing is left to burn."
@theonewillcome Your case seems to be to go to a lexicon which was made after the KJB, and which differs to the KJB.
That is even worse than saying "go to the TR" which existed before the KJB, and differs less.
And I am sure there are no wrong translations in the KJB.
If you go to lexicons, you will find plenty of wrong definitions. But if the lexicon differs to the KJB, it is the lexicon which is wrong, not the KJB.
I'm sorry but you are not making sense, the KJV was TRANSLATED from the Greek and Hebrew, it is not inspired, therefore in order for it to be Gods word, the original had to be correct, it's like having a chicken without the Egg.
@theonewillcome If you are willing to learn, understand that there is no existing Hebrew or Greek text extant that the KJB was translated from.
The autographs were inspired. The inspired words went forward in copies & eventually even translations. However, there was no single fully correct Bible or Testament, e.g. during the Reformation, which had 100% the inspired words in one Text. Therefore, it required the forming of a correct text in English to get all the inspired words in one Version.
By the way, as a KJBO, I understand that the KJB is the final form of the Received Text, and as such, is the supersuccessionary form of the Textus Receptus. This is because nowhere on earth exists one perfect Textus Receptus in one book/volume/manuscript. But the KJB is one. See Isaiah 34:16.
@bibleprotector I agree with you that the original language texts are no longer necessary but they can be helpful. I personally believe the AV1611 is the best possible English translation (with the possible exception of the Original Geneva Bible which is basically out of print) but.... when certain KJBO take it to far they actually destroy the very purpose and original intention of King James Bible onlyism. The reason we are KJBO is because of the texts and manuscripts which it is based on.
@WorshipInTruth The reason why we are KJBO is because the KJB exists now, is correct now, and is available everywhere now. The original languages are in many ways an opposite. They are limited. There is no perfect copy. They are understood properly by almost no one.
While the underlying texts arguments and correct translation argument are true in use of original languages, all scholars to Burgon & Hills have now gone to Heaven. We can just accept the English with its historical merits.
Textus Receptus only people such as myself do not advocate that people should not read the Bible in the vernacular [English], we simply add an understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek to our study of the AV1611.
@WorshipInTruth By adding the so-called understanding of the Hebrew and Greek into study, doctrine or interpretation, you are by default saying that the King James Bible is not sufficient alone. I agree with consulting helps, but to make it a necessity to turn to the Hebrew and Greek as though the full truth is not in a strait English view of the Scripture, is ultimately undermining the idea that the truth is in English. That is the fruit of the Reformation.
@WorshipInTruth I never said that TROs are against using the KJB. The problem is that the TROs use the KJB with "original language" eyeglasses. They have a filter between them and the English. It is something which is usurping & clouding the truth in English.
A TRO can accept the truth in English but always seems to find more "truth" by keeping connected to the life-support system of the original languages. Pull the plug! The KJB is alive & well. You will find it fully & utterly reliable.
Their is nothing wrong with going back to the original language, for instance Ex 5:5 uses the word rest, there are other types of rest, but specifically it refers to the Sabbath, we would not know that without looking.
It is when people take it out of context to suit their own agendas, this is when it becomes a problem.
@theonewillcome When the Scripture talked about rightly dividing, it including understanding the application of words. For example, in English we see the word "rest", and we understand what it means by proper study which does not require going to the original language. Those who teach a doctrine which is based on going to the original languages are getting into miry ground.
Going to the originals does not legitimise a meaning of a word for a doctrine.
A primitive root; to repose, that is, desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causatively, figuratively or specifically): - (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away.
Your assumption is incorrect my friend, you are encouraging people to trust others, rather than do their own research, please rethink.
@theonewillcome Your excursion into Hebrew denies the true meaning of the King James Bible English words as they stand. In fact, the method of using lexicons now produces much nonsense, & has become notorious for establishing wrong doctrines (see Titus 1:14 in KJB).
To point people to the KJB for study is the supreme act of encouraging people to trust the truth. Those who promote original language studies today seem to be the ones promoting "trust others" & abandon real historical research.
You also have words that have been added to the text, those in italics. This is not a problem with grammatical add on's to enable a sentence to be understood, but when an adjective or a verb is added it can change the true meaning, for instance, the word "sacrifice" added to the word daily, is incorrect and changes the whole true meaning.
@theonewillcome Italics in the KJB are not a problem at all. They are the instrument for showing the state of the underlying languages while allowing the full sense to be given in English.
The word "daily" was not wrongly added to "sacrifice". The translators understood the sense of the originals, that the full meaning of the place was "daily sacrifice" & this is how they correctly rendered it in English. For correct meaning, it does not always equal one English word for one original word.
Firstly my friend "Daily" was not added to "sacrifice," it was vice versa, the word "Daily" refers to paganism, not Christs ministry as some wrongly claim.
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily {sacrifice} was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
This text refers to the Papacy boasting against Jesus Christ, and by the Papacy Paganism was lifted up and exalted.
@theonewillcome The words "daily" and "sacrifice" belong. Daily sacrifice referring to the saint's worship, which was usurped by the papacy. The Papacy usurped the leadership position. Going to the original languages brings in confusion. People like Mede or Newton were on the right track, but some mistakes they made are related to wrong application of the original languages.
The words "taken away," when you look at the original Hebrew, actually mean "lift up and exalt", the papal power under the disguise of Christianity exalts Paganism to a new level, it used the armies of King Clovis of France in AD 508 to defeat the pagan powers to allow Catholicism a free reign, it is Satans greatest deception.
@theonewillcome It really is a mistake to "correct" the KJB by saying one set of words should be and mean something else. The taking away refers to the Christian exaltation of God's Word, and the event you mention was one part of that. In fact, there is no need to change the meaning of the KJB to make it "better fit" with proper interpretation. Proper interpretation is able to be derived from the KJB.
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
The word "Host" means Army (The French) against Paganism (The Daily), Catholicism has been destroying and hiding the truth ever since.
@theonewillcome Going to the Hebrew now has cause a great mistake. The word "host" means people of God. The Papacy came into power over the people of God. Otherwise it would read as if paganism was good, and the Papacy twisted it. Anyway, this issue is pretty far off the topic at hand.
It is only by understanding the true meaning of certain words that we can clearly identify the true meaning of certain verses, without the original this is not possible.
It is very important my friend, Jesus said to search and study, not just to look.
Excellent critique! It is absolutely amazing how trapped some people are into "going to the Greek or Hebrew etc.". The KJB is perfect as is and need not be rejected as the TRO position is doing.
@1689Baptist Do you support the TRO view? Why is it wrong to rely on the English Bible without knowing Hebrew and Greek, just like many saints did from the Reformation era to this day?
I have not been convinced yet which manuscript is the right one. But I do know it is impossible to have a perfect English translation b/c of the differences in language. The Hebrew especially was heavy or pregnant with meaning one English word cannot possibly contain the meaning found in one Hebrew word.
The reformation days are full of writers who knew Greek and Hebrew and there were tons of commentary to help the common man.
Amen and amen, Brother!
αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει
(Translated into English, the Greek text reads, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!") The complaint of an honest scribe, it was written in the margin of Rome's corrupt Codex Vaticanus at Hebrews 1:3.
The inerrant King James Bible, translated from pure texts on the other hand, is the perfect translation of the Holy Scriptures into our common language during its Golden Age.
jjpetkusiii 2 weeks ago in playlist King James Bible
2 Samuel 22:31
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
ModernDayBoanerges 3 weeks ago in playlist King James Bible
I think you are missing the point. If an original text is perfect (the original text of the Holy Bible was perfect), translating it cannot make it more perfect. It may make it easier to understand for a wider audience but the message cannot be improved. If there is a change in the message then between the original text and the KJV through translation, this could only be a bad change even if it's been made easier to understand. I'd rather be somewhat confused by God's truth than fully understan
NornIrishMan 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan You say that an original text is perfect. There is no "is". There is presently no perfect New Testament in Greek. All copies differ. Textus Receptus editions differ. None is perfect.
The only perfect text, that is, set of readings, is in the King James Bible. That is the only place where every word of every reading is correct. Whether or not the KJB is a translation is beside the point, because text is entirely different to translation.
Where is the perfect Greek text today?
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan I am not saying that the King James Bible is more perfect in its message or meanings than what was originally inspired in the autographs.
But the original autographs are lost.
Moreover, as English speakers, we are not able to understand the foreign Greek or Hebrew, but English. So we are thankful that the Word of God is perfect in English.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan Your opinion that changes may exist in the translation of the King James Bible is incorrect. The King James Bible translation matches conceptually sense for sense with what was originally given, and therefore, we are reading in English the exact message of God. This has nothing to do with supposed ease or difficulty of understanding, and everything to do with accuracy and knowing God's truth is available and accessible in English. We should study to understand it.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
I'm a KJV only Christian myself but that's only because I am unable to speak Ancient Greek and Hebrew. Are you really suggesting that on a scale of completeness and/or reliability, a translation could exceed that of the original? Is that what you are saying or are you saying that the KJV is just as perfect as the original texts? I'd love to have a perfect English translation but as the KJV like other translations was translated by human hand, I think it would be naive to think that there won't
NornIrishMan 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan Speaking or reading the original languages today is not going to be superior to the King James Bible, because:
1. There are variations, divisions and uncertainties in the original language texts, even between TR editions,
2. There is debate over the exact meaning.
It is much more logical to overcome all this by turning to an English text and translation which is accessible to the whole world which has resolved all such issues.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan The KJB cannot exceed the original autographs, except that it has all the books of the Canon together in one common language. But as far as content or concepts, the perfection of the Bible in English is because it is matching exactly to what God intended to communicate.
To relegate translation to a human process only is denying the operation of God's providence. The original language copies today, including TR editions, would be likewise subject to "human hands".
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan That "naive" view of the perfection of the King James Bible's English translated words is actually spiritually designed, see 1 Cor. ch. 2.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:13, 14).
bibleprotector 1 month ago
I have heard Dr DiVietro speak on this issue before and my understanding is that he is a staunch supporter of the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible which uses the Textus Receptus. I suspect that Dr DiVietro's views have been misrepresented by this video which has been edited showing comments that are not being taken in context. I think the crux of Dr DiVietro's argument is that other English translations which don't use the Textus Receptus are inaccurate and unreliable.
NornIrishMan 1 month ago
@NornIrishMan I have not quoted the doctor out of context at all.
While it is certainly correct that he does support the KJV, & argues for the superiority of versions based on the TR, he is taking a view which denies the absolute perfection of the Bible in English.
Here is a broad scale, he is at number 3., I am at number 4:
1. Modern Version view.
2. Majority Text/Byzantine view.
3. Textus Receptus/KJV Preferred view.
4. King James Bible only/English Perfection view.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
@bibleprotector Are you suggesting that the letter Matthew wrote to the Jews is not as accurate as the English translation that we read today?
kyfan22joey 1 month ago
@kyfan22joey Do you mean the Gospel of Matthew? It is presumptuous to claim it was written to the Jews, in that would contradict the idea in Romans 15:4, 16:26, etc.
What Matthew wrote in Greek was, of course, inspired, inerrant and perfect. Just because we do not have the autograph does not mean that it can be recompiled today in an English translation. By this I mean we have an EXACT representation of every necessary word and idea in English in our King James Bible.
bibleprotector 1 month ago
To transgress.
1. to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; offend; sin.
–verb (used with object)
2. to PASS OVER or go beyond (a limit, boundary, etc.): to transgress bounds of prudence.
3. to go beyond the limits imposed by
His understading of transgression was perfectly fine.
DoctrinesofGraceBapt 10 months ago
@DoctrinesofGraceBapt Transgress is an English word, and your definition is in English, and I am sure quite good & acceptable. There is no need at all for original languages in Bible study: we are afforded a full supply from history of teaching and defence of the KJB's translation that we can let the matter rest. There are big problems where people go to the Hebrew & Greek today, because they end up making different translations, different definitions & different concepts to the KJB.
bibleprotector 10 months ago
Very good video.
random331 1 year ago
I went on a TR rampage a while ago (you may recall). All it did was lead me back to the multiple translations. However, I now believe that God has preserved His words in the AV. I do not know Greek, I do not need Greek. God has supplied me with His Holy Scriptures in my own tongue, perfect & without error.
BloodBoughtChad 1 year ago
@BloodBoughtChad Well, as long as you are not wavering. Some people object to some KJB readings because they are not much attested to in the Greek. They do not look holistically at evidence, including the Latin. Also, we must accept sense-for-sense translation which is not always slave to "literal" Greek. Most Christians since the Reformation have not known Greek, and God has been able to speak to them in His Word in English. We should not assume that the KJB is wrong or automatically doubt it.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@BloodBoughtChad On what basis do you say "God has supplied me with His Holy Scriptures in my own tongue, perfect & without error"? I've never understood this assertion by some with regards to particular Bible translation. What assurance do you have that the perfect English words were chosen to translate the Greek the Hebrew?
ThisRestlessPilgrim 10 months ago
i disagree that we are not to look up what sin means in the original language that the word of God was written in, this video does no justice to the truth whatsoever, be gone with you!!
1StandingRock 1 year ago
@1StandingRock It is extremely foolish to say that "sin" is defined by the original languages. Perhaps we also need to hear the Gospel in New Testament Greek in order to understand it. Yes, I am sure that people say you cannot be saved unless you use a different name than "God" or "Jesus" (which are English).
Those who attack the truth being in English are on the same side as the Roman Catholics for forbade translation of the Scripture into English.
I condemn that which speaks otherwise.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
tolar9 writes, "God does not care about Gentile nations". This is incorrect. The whole purpose of the great commission was that He wants nations to be converted. "Everything and everyone else will be destroyed!" People only have this negative view because they see so much evil today, but the Word must triumph, and at least SOME should be saved. "There's no such thing as a Xtian nation". Funny word, you mean "Christian" don't you? Why should we deny the power of the Gospel to transform nations?
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Got it! Makes me even more grateful that Eng is my 1st language! BTW is there a Scriptural basis for the claim that KJB is the final form?
I'll go to your website & have another read--have to say, all the flags put me off a bit--I think Christ only cares about Israel (Physical & Spiritual)--but I support your defence of the KJB over all the antichrist modern versions. I love the TR as the Word of God, too, though...Anyway, may God bless you even more in 2011 and thanks for your kind replies!
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 Yes, the Scriptural basis is in my you tube video on "English Primacy".
I think that Christ cares for Gentiles. He explicitly commanded us to convert nations at Matt. 28:19, 20. He also told the Gentiles to convert Jews at Romans 11:31, 32.
Providence reveals that the English-speaking nations have been especially useful to God for His evangelistic purposes.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector Oh, sorry, wasn't suggesting the Lord doesn't care about Gentiles--just not Gentile nations. The Gentiles in His Spritual Kingdom are, I believe, Spiritual Israel, or, if you will, the Gentile Elect. He only cares about those Jews who believe in Him, or will one day believe in Him: the Jewish Elect. Physical Isreal, imo, is an earthly representation of Spiritual Israel.
Anyway, I will check out your "English Primacy" video. Thanks again!
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 I think God is concerned for Gentile nations. I have another video called "800 horsemen" which touches on this issue.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
So, are you saying that, until 1611, the world didn't have the word of God?
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 NO.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector Oh. Then what was it? And, now that the KJV is around, has it been voided?
Also, if I don't understand English, and have come to faith via a translation in my language, do I still have to study English to understand the truly inspired Word of God that is the KJV?
Thanks in advance,
your brother in Christ
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 The Word of God has not been voided. The KJB does not "void" other copies. Many people have been Christian without knowing the KJB, and the KJB was not made by inspiration from 1604-1611.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector Thanks for that. I'm still a bit confused about your contention here. I understood that the DBS was pro-KJV as it was based on the TR & Maj Txts. Is your point that the KJB is the Inspired Word of God & the TR isn't? Or that the TR cannot be understood apart from the KJB translation?
Currently, in the absence of any dispelling revelation, I believe the Inspired Word of God (NT) was given in Koine Greek because it was the best human language vehicle for it. Do you disagree?
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 DBS is TRO, so they may not accept that the KJB is the perfect final form of the received text, and they do not accept that the KJB is a 100% sense for sense translation from the original languages.
My point has nothing to do with inspiration which happened when Moses or Paul wrote. The issue is about the quality of preservation in English: Has God been able to gather His Word fully into 1 Bible or not?
The KJB is the final form of the TR. English is God's way today, not Greek.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector Ah, right! I get it. Thank you. I can understand that. Although I'm not sure why you say "final form", since, presumably, if He does not return within the next century or more, He might decide to choose Chinese for the next form of the TR/KJB, or Punjabi, no?
tolar9 1 year ago
@tolar9 Final form means that the KJB is perfect, and nothing else will take its place in the future. God will not choose some other language, because English is settled as the world language.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
PLEASE NOTE that I moderate most comments, and that I do not tolerate spam, profanity, false accusations, heresy, nonsense and irrelevant comments. Since I have to manually approve many comments, they do not appear instantly. This not only gives me opportunity to cast out the chaff, but to respond directly to every post (if I want to). My youtube channel (and videos) is not a debate forum, though legitimate questions can be raised, and differing issues, ideas and opinions discussed civilly.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
The AV1611 cannot be CORRECTED by the original manuscripts but there are several places where it can be CLARIFIED by use of the original manuscripts. Why you would be opposed to this is beyond me. Are the Textus Receptus manuscripts not inspired?
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth The TR manuscripts are not inspired. Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and others were not inspired. The words contained therein, in as much as they match the original autographs, are inspired. But there is only one book with every inspired word in it, and that happens to be an English translation.
Just so you know, I am not against the Scripture in Hebrew and Greek, nor do I prohibit understanding the Scripture by all proper and historically practiced means. But the KJB is perfect.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector So you admitt that the TR manuscripts are only inspired in as far as they correlate and agree with the original Gospel manuscripts as written by the Apostles. So we must come to the same conclusion with the KJB, it is only a "perfect" translation in as far as it agrees with the "original autographs" as you put it. This means it is not "perfect" simply because of its own historical merit.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth You have incorrect logic & have misunderstood me. The TR editions have inspired words in as much as their words match the original autographs. Although TR editions all have some problems, there is one final Received Text which is correct: the KJB. Internal and external examination shows it as perfect & superior to any TR edn. I know it astounds some that a translation rather than an original language copy is fully perfect, but that's the way God has done it, so don't resist Him.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector So, there are a few parts of Scripture which the TR is missing, well how did Erasmus rectify this? He used corrupted papist mansucripts to complete it, therefore the KJB is not "perfect" on its own merit but only in as far as it agrees with the TR. Just because it is "complete" does not make it "perfect". The Hampton Court Conference was not "perfect", while they were God fearing men and I believe moved by God, I know of at least two blatant heretics which sat on that conference.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth The KJB was made nearly 100 years after Erasmus, and there are many intervening TR editions. No TR edition is perfect. But the KJB is.
As for Hampton Court, it was not that conference which actually made the KJB. And for all the doctrinal issues we may have with either Prelacy or Puritans, the KJB was above such sectarian squabbles, being the Word of God for all English speakers, and not tied to or limited by whatever (false) accusation may be levelled at one of those men.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector I agree with you that the KJB is above demoninational squabbles as it is the Word of God in the English language for English speakers. But.. when you say it is "perfect" what premise do you base this on??
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth The perfection of the KJB is based upon its internal merits, as well, when it is seen in light of its external circumstance.
People falsely reason that perfection must require a master copy on golden plates from heaven to compare to. But actually perfection has been wrought by the Spirit of God within the limits of history by His providence.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector "Actual perfection has been wrought by the Spirit of God within the limits of history". I agree with this statement also, but do you not see how the "perfection" of the KJV is the result of a continuous line of God fearing men who, at risk of life and limb, translated and preserved the Bible? We would have no KJV if it were not for the Textus Receptus, we would have no KJV if it were not for Tyndale, Erasmus, Beza, the Geneva Bible etc. etc. Give credit where it is due plz.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth You seem to be mistakenly accusing me of something I don’t believe. The KJB is the final form of the Received Text. I am just pointing out that the KJB is perfect, unlike the Textus Receptus editions. Moreover, perfection has come only because of the building upon the foundational work which came before, which includes TR editions, the Geneva Version, etc.
There would be no perfection without those things having come before. I am not withholding credit from those things.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector If Erasmus and Beza et. al were not inspired then how is it you claim that the KJB (based largely on their manuscripts) is a "perfect" translation? This "perfection" would not be able to occur unless God was personally involved somehow during the translation process.
The KJB 1611 IS the best English translation but this is ONLY BECAUSE it is based on the Textus Receptus [Recieved Majority Text] which is in turn based on the Byzantine Style eastern works.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth The KJB is based on a wide view of a corpus of witness testimony. The perfection of the KJB comes because of the correct gathering of text, and correct translation. Perfection does not imply God's direct inspiration in 1605-1611, but because of God's providence and work in circumstances that the KJB is right in the fullness of time, the finalising of a long process. The KJB is not only the best, but perfect. The KJB looks to the West (Latin) as well as Byzantine tradition.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector You say yourself that "KJB is right in the fulness of time, the finalising of a long process". I agree, but... how can you then not give full respect and credit to the Textus Receptus for its vital role in the consummation of this process?? If the very creators of the KJVB looked towards the works of people such as Erasmus and Tyndale in their creation of it then how can you deny the merit of the Textus Receptus?
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth You have mistaken me. I fully appreciate the merits and virtues of both the TR and the other Protestant Bibles which came before. The KJB is the final end of all those good things. I am not anti-TR. I am saying the KJB is the best form of the Received Text.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
The King James originated from the Textus Receptus, so how can they possibly not be inspired?????
There are also King James AV Bibles with mistakes in them, it is the best Bible by far around today, but checking from the original is sometimes necessary.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome The Textus Receptus was not made by inspiration, and the King James Bible was not made by inspiration. It is a fact that the TR editions all differ to each other, so none can be 100% matching the inspired originals. The KJB does match 100% via translation.
The KJB does not have textual or translation mistakes. There is no perfect original autographs to compare to. The KJB is a construction, it is the only finite extant form which is 100% perfect today.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
The textus receptus is not inspired???
You speak with a forked tongue my friend, are you saying that God has not preserved His word??
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome The Textus Receptus was not made by inspiration, but by learned men who were attempting to recover out of available evidence the original readings of Scripture. That is why there are so many editions of the Textus Receptus, and why they all differ (e.g. Erasmus' first edition does not have 1 John 5:7 as a main reading).
As for preservation, since there are no perfect compilations which were ever available, then the KJB has to be the first (& last) one to gather it fully.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@theonewillcome You should not call me your friend if you make accusations. As you should realise, I could not believe in the KJB unless God had preserved His Word to this day.
Also, inspiration is something which happened once when the autographs were made. The inspired words were then preserved, not in perfect copies, but in many INCOMPLETE and IMPERFECT ways. The TRs were attempts at recovering this, but the KJB is the one which has perfectly gathered the inspired words: so it is inspired.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
That is a contradiction, the KJV is translated from the Textus Receptus (received text), so how can the KJV be inspired but not the TR??? The TR was confirmed as being accurate over the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus by the Dead Sea Scrolls, God has preserved His word which was written in Greek and Hebrew!!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome I already showed you that the TR and the KJB were both not made by inspiration. I then showed you that no edition of the TR matches any other edition exactly, and that therefore no TR edition contains 100% the inspired words, because no known TR edition matches 100% what was first inspired. However, the KJB as an evaluation of readings and by accurate translation is actually presenting 100% the inspired words because the KJB is the final form of the Received Text.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@theonewillcome While God preserved His Word in the original langauges, He did not limit preservation to the original languages. Moreover, you have the problem of not having a perfect copy of the Scripture of either Testament today. Where is the perfect Greek NT? The perfect Hebrew OT?
Since there is none, it therefore follows that the one Bible which fully gathers the text is also an English translation.
Thus, only the KJB has 100% inspired words, unlike any TR or Bomberg Hebrew edition.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
The English words in the KJV came from the received texts, they still have root from where they originated, you are saying don't go to the origin, when the origin gives us clearer understanding, like I have proved to you!!
Believe what you will, but you will be held accountable if you cause others to be deceived.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome I will show you how the KJB is superior to any edition of the Textus Receptus:
Which edition of the Textus Receptus is the perfect one?
There is none (all differ to the KJB). This is because no TR edition contains 100% the inspired words.
Now, the King James Bible, which gathered from a wide variety of sources, is obviously correct in its textual choices, unlike any TR edition.
Therefore the KJB has 100% inspired words and is perfect.
The TR is resolved by the KJB.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Look my friend, I'm no universtity graduate, but God in His infinite wisdom granted me a brain which is in good working order, now let's get this right, in order for a word to be placed in the KJV, it has to have a source from whence that word came, you cannot just put a word in out of thin air, therefore every word in the KJV has a root source, it matters not that it comes from several manuscripts, it still has a root!
TBC
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Yes, the KJB gathered from various sources, but there is a correct root: the original autographs. By what you are saying you should realise that the TR is inferior to the KJB, because it is only the KJB which has all the readings together correctly..
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Now a Strongs Concordance for instance is based upon the KJV, therefore all the words in the KJV originate from the Greek and Hebrew words in a Strongs, it is their root source. Now over time some words have been mistranslated, for instance Zech 11:17 says Idol Shepherd, speaking about the Pope, but in some KJV it says "Idle" which is a mistranslation, the only way to know for sure is to go to the root.
My case ends!!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Your logic is back to front. If the Strongs is based on the KJB, what is the need for going to the Hebrew from English, when we have the English. Anyway, the Strongs has definitions which are against the KJB.
If we start from the KJB, and we see "idol shepherd" at Zech. 11:17, we should trust the KJB without having to go to the Hebrew to justfy something, or make false accusations about the KJB.
The KJB says "idol" not "idle", so your point is wrong anyway.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
My point is not wrong, I have 2 KJV's one says Idle and the other says Idol, I know which one is correct because my concordance tells me and it doesn't matter how many manuscripts were used to make the KJV, the word that was translated into English is the root word, now either it is the correct Greek and Hebrew word from the texts or the English is wrong, now which is it?
Where does the strongs disagree with the KJV?
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome So you admit that the KJB does have "idol". You don't need to look at a lexicon as the final authority to prove which edition is correct. In fact, there is a simple process for doing so without reference to the original languages. A clue: See my website.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@theonewillcome As for Strongs, it disagrees with the KJB every time it gives a definition which counters the translation of the KJB. Some of its interpretations are wrong. Its pronunciations are suspect. It does not give a full or whole picture of the actual underlying textual basis of the KJB.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Ok let's do a test:
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Please tell me what for ever and ever means?
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome for ever and ever means exactly what it says. Why define the concept clearly and plainly given by English words with other definitions with other English words? There is no doctrine which can be disestablished from the King James Bible by turning to the original languages. In teaching, we would say that this passage means continually, eternally, on and on.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
So you believe that there is an eternal place called Hell, where everyone who is not of God burns eternally for a few years of iniquity?
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Actually, I believe that hell as we know it is only temporary. It gets thrown into the eternal lake of fire.
The reason why people go there is because their works come from a corrupt heart.
If someone says that the Bible does not teach eternal damnation, then they are not believing the real Bible, but doubtless changing doctrines by "going to the Greek".
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
I don't doubt eternal damnation, I am asking you what that punishment is, is their a Lake of Fire that Burns people for ever and ever as you understand it?
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Your question is far off topic, but the answer is that the Bible clearly states that people are tormented forever in a lake of fire.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
The following response was deleted off because it contained heresy that damnation is not eternal. Here is a quote from the deleted post from "theonewillcome" showing his heresy, and how he must defy the KJB to state his false view:
"So by reading "for ever and ever" it does not give a true understanding, it actually means an unspecified period of time, they burn until nothing is left to burn."
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Your case seems to be to go to a lexicon which was made after the KJB, and which differs to the KJB.
That is even worse than saying "go to the TR" which existed before the KJB, and differs less.
And I am sure there are no wrong translations in the KJB.
If you go to lexicons, you will find plenty of wrong definitions. But if the lexicon differs to the KJB, it is the lexicon which is wrong, not the KJB.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
I'm sorry but you are not making sense, the KJV was TRANSLATED from the Greek and Hebrew, it is not inspired, therefore in order for it to be Gods word, the original had to be correct, it's like having a chicken without the Egg.
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome If you are willing to learn, understand that there is no existing Hebrew or Greek text extant that the KJB was translated from.
The autographs were inspired. The inspired words went forward in copies & eventually even translations. However, there was no single fully correct Bible or Testament, e.g. during the Reformation, which had 100% the inspired words in one Text. Therefore, it required the forming of a correct text in English to get all the inspired words in one Version.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Do not make the mistakes of Peter Ruckman [who I believe was actually a subversive Jesuit priest.]
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
By the way, as a KJBO, I understand that the KJB is the final form of the Received Text, and as such, is the supersuccessionary form of the Textus Receptus. This is because nowhere on earth exists one perfect Textus Receptus in one book/volume/manuscript. But the KJB is one. See Isaiah 34:16.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector I agree with you that the original language texts are no longer necessary but they can be helpful. I personally believe the AV1611 is the best possible English translation (with the possible exception of the Original Geneva Bible which is basically out of print) but.... when certain KJBO take it to far they actually destroy the very purpose and original intention of King James Bible onlyism. The reason we are KJBO is because of the texts and manuscripts which it is based on.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth The reason why we are KJBO is because the KJB exists now, is correct now, and is available everywhere now. The original languages are in many ways an opposite. They are limited. There is no perfect copy. They are understood properly by almost no one.
While the underlying texts arguments and correct translation argument are true in use of original languages, all scholars to Burgon & Hills have now gone to Heaven. We can just accept the English with its historical merits.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Textus Receptus only people such as myself do not advocate that people should not read the Bible in the vernacular [English], we simply add an understanding of the original Hebrew and Greek to our study of the AV1611.
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth By adding the so-called understanding of the Hebrew and Greek into study, doctrine or interpretation, you are by default saying that the King James Bible is not sufficient alone. I agree with consulting helps, but to make it a necessity to turn to the Hebrew and Greek as though the full truth is not in a strait English view of the Scripture, is ultimately undermining the idea that the truth is in English. That is the fruit of the Reformation.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@WorshipInTruth I never said that TROs are against using the KJB. The problem is that the TROs use the KJB with "original language" eyeglasses. They have a filter between them and the English. It is something which is usurping & clouding the truth in English.
A TRO can accept the truth in English but always seems to find more "truth" by keeping connected to the life-support system of the original languages. Pull the plug! The KJB is alive & well. You will find it fully & utterly reliable.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Their is nothing wrong with going back to the original language, for instance Ex 5:5 uses the word rest, there are other types of rest, but specifically it refers to the Sabbath, we would not know that without looking.
It is when people take it out of context to suit their own agendas, this is when it becomes a problem.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome When the Scripture talked about rightly dividing, it including understanding the application of words. For example, in English we see the word "rest", and we understand what it means by proper study which does not require going to the original language. Those who teach a doctrine which is based on going to the original languages are getting into miry ground.
Going to the originals does not legitimise a meaning of a word for a doctrine.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
H7673
שׁבת
shâbath
shaw-bath'
A primitive root; to repose, that is, desist from exertion; used in many implied relations (causatively, figuratively or specifically): - (cause to, let, make to) cease, celebrate, cause (make) to fail, keep (sabbath), suffer to be lacking, leave, put away (down), (make to) rest, rid, still, take away.
Your assumption is incorrect my friend, you are encouraging people to trust others, rather than do their own research, please rethink.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Your excursion into Hebrew denies the true meaning of the King James Bible English words as they stand. In fact, the method of using lexicons now produces much nonsense, & has become notorious for establishing wrong doctrines (see Titus 1:14 in KJB).
To point people to the KJB for study is the supreme act of encouraging people to trust the truth. Those who promote original language studies today seem to be the ones promoting "trust others" & abandon real historical research.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
You also have words that have been added to the text, those in italics. This is not a problem with grammatical add on's to enable a sentence to be understood, but when an adjective or a verb is added it can change the true meaning, for instance, the word "sacrifice" added to the word daily, is incorrect and changes the whole true meaning.
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Italics in the KJB are not a problem at all. They are the instrument for showing the state of the underlying languages while allowing the full sense to be given in English.
The word "daily" was not wrongly added to "sacrifice". The translators understood the sense of the originals, that the full meaning of the place was "daily sacrifice" & this is how they correctly rendered it in English. For correct meaning, it does not always equal one English word for one original word.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Firstly my friend "Daily" was not added to "sacrifice," it was vice versa, the word "Daily" refers to paganism, not Christs ministry as some wrongly claim.
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily {sacrifice} was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
This text refers to the Papacy boasting against Jesus Christ, and by the Papacy Paganism was lifted up and exalted.
TBC
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome The words "daily" and "sacrifice" belong. Daily sacrifice referring to the saint's worship, which was usurped by the papacy. The Papacy usurped the leadership position. Going to the original languages brings in confusion. People like Mede or Newton were on the right track, but some mistakes they made are related to wrong application of the original languages.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
The words "taken away," when you look at the original Hebrew, actually mean "lift up and exalt", the papal power under the disguise of Christianity exalts Paganism to a new level, it used the armies of King Clovis of France in AD 508 to defeat the pagan powers to allow Catholicism a free reign, it is Satans greatest deception.
TBC
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome It really is a mistake to "correct" the KJB by saying one set of words should be and mean something else. The taking away refers to the Christian exaltation of God's Word, and the event you mention was one part of that. In fact, there is no need to change the meaning of the KJB to make it "better fit" with proper interpretation. Proper interpretation is able to be derived from the KJB.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
Dan 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
The word "Host" means Army (The French) against Paganism (The Daily), Catholicism has been destroying and hiding the truth ever since.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome Going to the Hebrew now has cause a great mistake. The word "host" means people of God. The Papacy came into power over the people of God. Otherwise it would read as if paganism was good, and the Papacy twisted it. Anyway, this issue is pretty far off the topic at hand.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
It is only by understanding the true meaning of certain words that we can clearly identify the true meaning of certain verses, without the original this is not possible.
It is very important my friend, Jesus said to search and study, not just to look.
Shalom!
theonewillcome 1 year ago
@theonewillcome The KJB is the Scripture.
Here are some facts:
1. There is no perfect form of either Testament in the original languages today.
2. There is no absolute certain known exact meaning for every word, or its correct sense in the original languages.
Therefore, without the KJB, we have neither the exact text nor an exact translation .
With the KJB, we have the exact text, and it is in English, and the correct sense by a proper translation. So the matter is resolved.
bibleprotector 1 year ago
Amen! We don't need to go Greek or Hebrew, we have the English! Latin? LOL!
edwardpf123 1 year ago
Excellent critique! It is absolutely amazing how trapped some people are into "going to the Greek or Hebrew etc.". The KJB is perfect as is and need not be rejected as the TRO position is doing.
KJBman777 1 year ago
@KJBman777 -Amen! The KJB is a perfect translation of the Greek
and Hebrew into English.
edwardpf123 1 year ago
You are taking things way to far.
1689Baptist 1 year ago
@1689Baptist Do you support the TRO view? Why is it wrong to rely on the English Bible without knowing Hebrew and Greek, just like many saints did from the Reformation era to this day?
bibleprotector 1 year ago
@bibleprotector
I have not been convinced yet which manuscript is the right one. But I do know it is impossible to have a perfect English translation b/c of the differences in language. The Hebrew especially was heavy or pregnant with meaning one English word cannot possibly contain the meaning found in one Hebrew word.
The reformation days are full of writers who knew Greek and Hebrew and there were tons of commentary to help the common man.
1689Baptist 1 year ago