If you are basing your argument that God preserved his word in the kjv on Ps 12:6-7, then your base just broke. The word 'them' in the Hebrew is masculine, but the word for 'words' is feminine, therefore the 'them' cannot be referring to the 'words.' If you do, then you are ignoring grammar and anyone ignoring grammar is either a deceiver or a liar.
The KJV translators were second to NOBODY when it came to interpreting, and translating Hebrew and Greek into English. You, are a pee-on in comparison to those masters of language, just read their credentials. You, are your own final authority. The Almighty, is fully capable of giving man an infallible English translation, and he did just that.
AMEN!! AMEN!!AMEN!! Matt.5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Excellent post!!!
Thank you, Brother Tim, for uploading this timely and edifying video, which exposes the shallowness and folly of the so-called "scholars" who follow in the footsteps of Wescott and Hort. Multiple errors and follies are founded on the myth that translation committees of contempo twits are doing people a favor by mistranslating the Scriptures into inferior, dishonest, incorrect, and misleading language.
As your aware, the internal evidence of the scriptures, speaks for itself. The Canon rules as disclosed in scripture is such, that a fifth grader can discern corruption without knowing a word of Greek or Hebrew.
You are true that the words of God are True. So why did the King James Translators change the greek word "pascal" which means Passover to read Easter in Acts 12:4? Your "perfect" translation has been found to be wanting. The TR that the King James was based on was produced primarily by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic scholar. Look into history. It has a story to tell. Get back to me after you read the "Translators To The Reader" Preface to the original 1611 A.V. I have one on my bookshelf.
There are more than 20 manuscripts that make up the TR, so out of the gate, your argument is flawed. The same could be said about your contrived definition of Easter.
The truth is, you wouldn't know what a TR looked like if you were slapped up along the side of the head with one.
And if you were slapped up along side of the head with the TR, you wouldn't know how to read it. You have a problem understanding English, so just forget about the Greek or Hebrew.
Actually, his first video was his fire and brimstone video that you see on his channel page next to my first video. I just don't know why that video no longer lists FIRST in his videos... why is that, Tim?
Keep up the good work bro. I'm amazed at how sterile and inept these Bible corrector's are. They must subterfuge information to sound halfway intelligent. God bless you.
It is true that the KJV is superior and I agree that God's word will not pass away, but Psalm 12:7 is talking about preserving the righteous. "Help, Lord for the Godly man ceaseth" etc.
That is what the Psalm is about it doesn't change context back and forth.
The "words" in vs 6 is talking about God's promise to preserve the godly man.
If you look up "preserve" in KJV, it almost always is referring to people.
"The generation" in vs. 7 is talking about the wicked in vs. 8.
That verse in Revelation closes out ALL SCRIPTURE that is to be canonized, and many passages in Revelation have been tampered with as well.
2Tim 4:3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Cor:2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
Asked the question, "what did they read before 1611?"
Before we had the AV 1611 there were a number of attempts to bring about an ENGLISH translation from the Old Hebrew, and Greek TR.
So the TR was the manuscript used as the authority. Ultimately, God simplified the complexity of having an authorized version of scripture by putting both Testaments, and languages into one volume of work in ONE language complete with chapter and verse markings.
Great thought. Unfortunately most of your Greek-Onlyists will want scripture to back this up. But I agree with what you say. The KJV is the perfect, pure word and words of God for the English speaking people of the world. Which, if you do thorough research will find most of the world can either read, write or speak English or a combination of the three.
That's right, like you said...you can believe it or ignore it but there it is for you just the same. Thanks for sharing the truth, brother. Keep up the good work and the faith.
I assure you, that nov251968aab is as rock solid of a Bible Believer as anyone I know, and that the sites he has subscribed to, or saved to his favorites, are there to generate discourse.
This is MY site, and I operate under different ground rules. I have better things to do, than to fight the same fights that can be found on all the KJV hater sites. My purpose, is to try and get material out there in defense of the book, and not rehash up old arguments of the past that simply recycle.
The line of questioning, and the close proximity to your posts coupled with a craftiness in subtly, is to coincidental to just be chance. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, continuous posting of material will be going up on an ongoing basis, but judging from your perceived conclusions of my efforts, I would encourage you to move on, and find someone more trustworthy and capable to aid in your journey of faith.
nov251968 operates under a different premise than I do. He likes hits and discourse. I like to focus on material and substance. Nobody that I am aware of has set up 2 separate accounts to secure a place to post on my site, and I am very suspicious.
You and nov251968aab are Bible correctors trying to make us look ignorant and uneducated! I bet you are Sundayschooldefiler! AVERY ONE WHO LOVES THE BIBLE Look at nav251968aab's channel he is promoting a Bible corrector website in plain view! He thinks we are stupid enough not to notice it!!!!
So the truth comes out, how many more aliases do you have to slither your way around feigning to be someone that your not?
A deceptive conniving corrupter, does not deserve an apology. I made no mistake, I know who you are, and I intentionally blocked your crowd from MY forum. This alias will also be blocked.
Those questions have been asked and answered numerous times over in many forums. YOU, do not dictate what is addressed on this channel. I can permit what is deemed appropriate and edifying on this channel without YOUR permission. YOU will be permanently blocked, and anyone I thinks smells like YOU will be blocked.
Your blather about the Apocrypha, and your hatred of the KJV translators can be spewed on all YOUR forums, not mine.
Please stop pretending that you are anyway near as qualified as the KJV translators in either language. I'll be looking for more phony sock accounts in the future.
Mt:7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
I empathize with the chaos, and confusion you may be experiencing. One thing is certain. God is not the author of confusion. You need not worry about applying Hebrew rules of language to your English. You need only to worry about what the English actually says.
I thank you for your prior email, and share your concerns. This format is not by any means the best to divulge in detail the concerns you have relative to the seven generations, however, I'll give it my best shot.
When considering the seven generation process in it's entirety, rules of scriptural canonization come into play that carry on throughout the entire process. Those rules are given in more detail on the videos that I will be sending you.
We will be able to track all seven generations within the Old, and New Testament with the understanding, that all 66 books of the Bible do comply with the internal rules of scriptural canonization.
When you view the videos in order, leave a comment so that I know where you are. I will attempt to highlight pressing items that carry over when the KJV is generated.
I'll be sending you generations 1-4. I have also compiled the material together for generation 5-7, which will be forthcoming. Pay close attention, and you will see patterns that are replicated with our KJV, and then some interesting scriptures relative to Israel, that are vital, yet difficult to solve using the Greek and Hebrew.
I knew that account the KJValltheway account, was a phony sock account for freesundayschooless.
Anyone who was really "KJValltheway" would have already bridged through that stuff long ago, and would have not been contending for the Apocrypha.
Nice try, both accounts are now blocked, however, I will be posting information after my trip on the weekend for REAL KJV defenders in relation to the KJV's inspiration, and preservation.
Yes there is, the context of the passage leading up to the subject "them" stands in relation to Gods words, and his promise to preserve them.
I will also send you a video, that gives a very brief synopsis on the internal generations of scripture, and their signatures of canonization within the scriptures themselves.
I was looking at the passage that the faredawg person was talking about. Could you give your thoughts on verse five? I have heard these people use this verse before and I am unsure how to respond.
Ps 12:5: For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
These scriptures detail Gods promise to preserve his word. As your probably aware, they are absolutely loathed by Bible deniers, and correctors.
In verse 5, God offers his consoling encouragement from the oppression of the enemy, that would rise in contempt against him, and then goes right into his promise of inspiration, and preservation.
The internal evidence of the scripture does reveal the development the generation process that have undergone a scriptural canonization. These generations have been recorded in the scriptures for our admonition, and learning.
It's all in there, God promised it, now we just have to find it.
I have felt it nessessary to put forward some ground rules so that the video posts can stay focused. If you are only coming on board to talk about extra biblical nonesense, you will be removed.
I will only use 1 attempt to direct the discourse toward Bible related themes. If that admonition is rejected your going to have to make up a new sock account and try again, because you will be gone.
Our time to valuable to waste on outside, none authoritative discourse that only fosters babbling.
That prior post was only intended for a small minority, who love to monopolize a video with non productive hate filled none sense that we all can live without.
I have to say, the overwhelming majority are tuned in and primarily stay focussed on Bible related discourse, and for that, I give thanks.
Good Video. No one should read the distorted modern (NIV) of the Bible. For example, in the original (KJV) of the Bible, it says that when a couple make love before they get married and are found, then the guy has to pay her and marry her. But the (NIV) perversion distorts it and says rapists can marry who they rape.
In truth the King James Bible actually says in Deut 22:25 that raping a woman was punishable by death.
I'm new to this, but I think I figured out how to unblock, I meant to moderate, and not to completely block you. Please accept my apologies, it was unintentional. If it was intentional, I would post a reason why.
Tim, you might consider taking the block off of Barry's accounts as he is primarily the only one offering a debate against the KJV. Kind of difficult to debate something when everyone is in agreement with your stance.
Yeah Andy, I told him that if he had something new to talk about without getting into a mudslinging fest, that I would gladly allow him back on, until then, I'm holding true to my word.
I put a moderating block on everyone excluding friends. It seems to be the only way to tone down the rhetoric. If the party makes a compelling argument without the mudslinging, I'll gladly post.
I'm taking the block off to test the waters, but I'll put them right back if it's the same old same old....
If I blocked that lad , I'm unaware of how I did it other than the moderating channel controls, and if I did block him , how do I unblock him other than allowing all comments on the channel, which I did?
ECC 2.19 "And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?"
I just wish I was born yesterday. The KJVOnly debate will be gone when our generation dies:
ECC 2.16 "For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!"
Here is a post I received from edwardpf123 that I am posting for freesundayschoolless' benefit.
I received a message from Freesunday. He said that you were blocking some of his posts. I told him that I would contact you and let you know that if he wanted to discuss language/textual issues that would be fine with me as long as he kept the posts to a reasonable amount. I told him to direct those posts to me. If you want to let them go through, I would be happy to handle them.
2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
So, what is it EDWARD? Is the use of Greek wide-open again? Or, are you, like your friends, going to back step and say we don't need Greek when you get cornered.
Never mind the Greek brother, you need to learn English first.
1Cor:14:19: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
Ultimately, Bible correctors have to redefine, and re-translate what the qualified translators already have defined into English.
In the final analysis, your asking us to trust your translation into English rather than trusting in fully able bodied and qualified experts of Hebrew and Greek.
2Tm:1:12: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Sorry my friend, with all due respect, nobody who posts on this blog will ever measure up to the impeccable abilities that the KJV translators exhibited.
They were genuine experts, not self professing fools.
Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1Cor:3:18: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
I must have missed a question that you raised, since I don't understand this one. What do you mean, 'the use of the Greek wide-open again? When you have 'cornered' anyone using the Greek? I noted that 'ego eimi' was not a special reference to the LXX as you claimed, but was used often in John. There is no need for Greek/Hebrew to understand the KJB since it is a perfect translation. If you think you can PROVE the translation is wrong because of the Gr. have at it.
If your comments are simply reduced to name calling, all of that material will be removed.
I can live my life with the knowledge that you, or many others may not agree. We can joke around and have fun with our differences as I have attempted to do, and that's fine.
If it comes to mud slinging, it's over, and all those posts will be removed.
2 Tim 3:16 refers that that which recorded in the Sword of the Spirit, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry document that ponds itself off as authoritative.
That sword has been trying to reprove, rebuke and exhort you to no avail on this issue of inspiration, and preservation.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
You need to worry about the English, and stop cramming your head with stuff you can't figure out in other languages.
God made your job simple. Stop complicating the process and move ahead with your KJV.
You or I are not an authority in either Hebrew or Greek so stop pretending we are, and read the English. You don't have to be an authority, because the translators were, and they were experts in their work.
Already explained, time to move on. You are forcing a square peg into around hole when there is simply no call for it. Your "sense" argument stopped making "sense", so I blocked it, because we were going over the same thing that has already been commented on.God never mentions the word Aramaic in the Bible as a language that was spoken and wishes to document on record as part of the scripture so I'm not putting any emphasis on it either.
I also answered your Aramaic question, and blocked it, time to move on.
Here is your quote on Gods inability to preserve his word.
"There are no perfect translations. The originals were perfect. Does that mean that it is not the Word of God? No. It simply means we must study these things. The more we study, the more our faith increases".
Mt:24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
I blocked that Ps 2:6-7 statement, It's time to move on. That text is very clear. Stop wasting our time and offer a reason why you disagree with Gods ability to preserve his word, (not the originals) infallibly as he states he will do in Ps 12:6-7.
That was already explained in the Babylon account, go back and read it. Aramaic was obviously spoken but the scripture is recorded in Hebrew.
The KJV translators were clear as already stated. They translated the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek New Testament into English. When the inscription was nailed on the cross, is was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, no Aramaic, sorry brother, your balloon just popped.
But you are denying God the ability that he claims to have to preserve his word and deliver it to his people infallibly as a book he refers to, as the sword of the spirit.
Ps 12:6-7, 6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Using the unique, exact language of the LXX. There are other passages: Mark 7.10.
In all, the original point is that there were various translations in Jesus' day. The LXX is generally considered an inferior translation. Yet, Jesus quoted it.
There are no perfect translations. The originals were perfect. Does that mean that it is not the Word of God? No. It simply means we must study these things. The more we study, the more our faith increases.
You came on this blog and stated that Christ quoted from the LXX in John 8:58. Christ has absolutely nothing for a document in front of himself in that account that he is quoting from. The passage that he eludes to is Ex 3:14 which can be found in the Hebrew Old testament, and the LXX was not required at all.
The only way any connection to the LXX in the Greek could be made, is if your are reading from a translation that came out of Alexandria Egypt, and not from the TR.
kjvonly01: Sorry, but we are just going to have to disagree on this one. Without the Hebrew and Greek language skills, I cannot convince you.
Even so, the LXX existed during the time of Christ. He did not call it a "perversion." Whether He quoted from it or not, that is where we will have to depart.
You don't have the Greek and Hebrew skills required either, if you talk about the Septuagint and the TR in the same sentence as authoritative. You told me all I need to know without a word of Greek or Hebrew.
Any God fearing Scholar would recognize that the two do not belong in the same sentence together much less include one another as an authority.
Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
Christ never called it the Septuagint a perversion because he never ever refers to the document. He reads and quotes from the law, the prophets and the psalms, yet never mentions the word Septuagint anywhere.
Lk:24:44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
"'dynamic equivalence' in that passage-that is dealing with teaching what the passages meant. Sense- 'an ability to understand'"
Edward: I do not intend to sound demeaning, but you have a lack of theological understanding about inspiration and now illumination.
Neither Ezra nor the priests could give their hearers an ability to understand. That is the Holy Spirit's domain. All they could do is give the "sense" of the passage.
That is really stretching it brother, now we have to go by what a man thinks a word ,might mean to qualify what the scripture says, rather than taking what the scriptures says about the scripture.
Fact:
Ezra spoke from the book of the law. (Hebrew)
Fact:
When his final writings were recorded , the writings are recorded in Hebrew, (end of story).
The KJV translators state that they translated the Hebrew Old testament, and the Greek New Testament into English.
Well, my friend it is you who has a misunderstanding of the Bible. 'Sense' simply means making it clear to the hearer, which Ezra did. No different than a teacher today does for the Christian when he guides him through the scriptures. So, what the Holy Spirit does after the 'sense' has been given is to confirm what he has heard is true.(1Thess.2:13) does nothing to change the meaning of the word. Philip gave the eunich the 'sense' (explained) Isa.53 (Acts 8) and the HSp confirmed it as true.
However, to say "that doesn't mean everything they always knew they were writing scripture." The following passages should suffice to make my point that they knew certain writings were Scripture and had a quality about them that was endued with God's power and is "the truth."
"Not everything that these men wrote ended up in the Canon. They knew that they wrote with power and authority, but that doesn't mean everything they always knew they were writing scripture."
You are confusing two issues. Yes, I agree that not everything they wrote is inspired. The second letter to the Corinthians is lost. I believe (and am sure you do) that it was not preserved because it was not inspired. ---cont.
All the Bible correctors try to do, is confuse the process, when it is quite simple. A mountain out of a molehill.
Genesis Chapter 10-11 at the tower of Babel God confounded with language , but the entire account is recorded on Hebrew. People spoke many languages in the Hebrew Old Testament, but the final writings were recorded in Hebrew.
Since you do not know Greek and cannot compare the LXX against the Hebrew, it is useless. Here goes anyways:
For the words "I am" Jesus says "hon en." The common way is "ego eimi." This is an exact match of the LXX phraseology. This is a very unusual way to say "I am," and the LXX accounts for the reading.
In addition, you also have to factor in the version your reading from, and what Greek manuscripts are being pond off as a TR manuscript, Scholars love to play that game. However, I am is found in the Ex 3 account.
One more thing, upon reviewing that scripture, no reading is actually taking place in that account of John 8:58. Christ could have been quoting from a document if he wasn't reading a document, and in that account, he was not reading or quoting anything.
One more thing, upon reviewing that scripture, no reading is actually taking place in that account of John 8:58. Christ could ***** not have been quoting from a document if he wasn't reading a document, and in that account, he was not reading or quoting anything.
Actually I do know Greek and Christ uses 'ego eimi' in Jn. 8:28 and 9:9 as well. When Origen wrote the copy of the LXX we have today (2nd century) he had the NT in front of him. There was LXX in the Lord's day.
EDWARD: "Correction: that should read, there was NO LXX in the Lord's day."
I thought the discussion was finished.
Even so, go to the deanburgonsociety and see what my former professor Thomas Strouse says. He makes it very clear that the LXX existed. I disagree with his article, but he contradicts your point quite adequately.
You guys have to get your historical facts correct if you are going to challenge me on the LXX.
I havent spoken on this string too much. Im happier to watch you guys, but, I like to interject a little poke here and a little jab there at times and when someone leaves me an opening, well, Im gonna leap at it :o). That having been said, here it is freesunday.
Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
There is no mss evidence of any BC LXX existing. Even what the scholars claim existed in BC was only the Torah, NOT the entire LXX of the OT. The current LXX is the work of Origen, who translated it after the NT had already been completed.
freesundayschoolless , I blocked your last message relative to your insistence of the LXX in John 8:58. The reason, is because you keeping saying the same thing over and over with no biblical proof.
I will gladly accept a post that offers some proof, until then, I will block what you have already posted a half a dozen times or so.
Please offer some biblical proof to support your claims.
I have already made the case scripturally on the argument relative to God compiling volumes of work, and completing a canonization process that vindicates scripture as authoritative in the singular authority language used from the Bible itself.
Those weren't my words. It is you that asserts that man needs to compile a volume of books to adequately equip themselves in defense of the faith.
I am completely comfortable with the KJV, and my back is holding up very well.
Where does it say he didn't. Your the one cleaving to the growing list of modern day perversions, not I. Just look at the fruit, and which book comes under attack the most, and that will tell you which one is the book.
The internal evidence also agrees with the doctrinal expressions across the board in the KJV.
Your sitting here today railing on the KJV translators, while whole heartedly accepting the Septuagint as authoritative, while offering no biblical evidence to support any such claim.
Ultimately, your beef is still with KJV translators because good, is not good enough.
God took it upon HIMSELF to secure the inspiration and preservation process of scripture.
I'm not relying on the translators, but on Gods ability to come good on his word to supply an infallible Word of God in a single authorized volume of work referred to as the sword of the spirit, (in the singular).
Eph:6:17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Take every modern day translation known to man, and anything else that you think might be authoritative handed to you from scholars or bible institutions or seminaries.
In fairness to your argument, you are correct, I would however note that even the names given to the OT law are not scriptural names, but their writings have been revered and canonized.
In addition, I'm not the one claiming that Jesus Christ quoted from the KJV and then not supplying biblical evidence. Scholars claim that Jesus Christ quoted the LXX, and offer zero biblical proof to confirm their claims.
By the way, those scriptures weren't my logic, they are what the scripture conveys about the scripture. It is your logic that stands in contrast to what the scripture notes relative to the book brother.
Jude:1:3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
By the way, have you found that verse about Paul and Jesus carrying a bag of books to deliver their message, we are still waiting with baited breath. I hope you back is holding up.
Do you have any more authorities that you would like to add to your list?
In this text below, Jude warns of the need to contend for the faith,(singular), which was once, (singular), delivered unto the saints.
You nor I speak fluent NT Greek, or OT Hebrew, and neither do 95% of all Scholars. English happens to be the language of world commerce so when we are taking about a final translation into English, God only needs to perform his task once.
The Bible doesn't say that Jesus used the LXX, the scholars and our friend freesundayschoolless say that Jesus used the LXX.
God made your job easy in the English. I hear no rebuttals of the Hebrew OT text translated into Greek as authoritative in the Septuagintcoming from your camp.
Your entire beef, is with the KJV translators into English. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention the word Septuagint, ever.
Who are you calling "wise?" I never said I was wise. Who is wise?
Jesus used the LXX and the OT Hebrew Scriptures. We know this because he quotes the LXX in John 8:58. But, you don't know that because you are not equipped to study the Scriptures.
Christ never used any LXX so stop making up nonsense. No one in the NT ever quoted from the LXX. Except for some fragments of the Torah, there isn't even any evidence that a BC LXX ever existed! What most likely existed were Targums, Greek translations of various Hebrew Old Testament Books, but no single LXX BC has shown to have existed, no less being quoted by anyone in the NT.
The prior examples all show the sword, or the word in the singular, and this is what happens to those who do not have a love of the word, or the sword of the spirit,(in the singular).
2 Thes 2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
The prior examples all show the sword, or the word in the singular, and this is what happens to those who do not have a love of the sword of te spirit, (in the singular).
1 Thes 2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
Heb:4:12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
2Cor:4:2: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
Eph:6:17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
I'm a defender of the faith, no titles or status seeking names here brother.
How is your back holding up, did you find that verse yet where Christ and Paul carry a bag full of books, or did come back to add a few more books to your growing list of authorities.
New summary conclusion Based on freesundayschoolless's own statements.
I do not hate the KJV. I consider each translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, BHS, TR, NA27) to be God's Word.
So we have an admitted 7 translations, with the Septuagint which came from the Vaticanis, and Sinaiticus whiche vehemently disagree with the TR, and we are now adding 3 more bodies of work into the equation.
And of course, we haven't even mentioned the Scholar footnotes, nor the extra biblical information.
Well the problem, to be honest, is that if you really want to add the Septuagint to your list, your going to have to add the Vaticanis, and Sinaiticus to your growing list of authorities.
Ultimately, your still your own authority in the end.Only YOU can figure out which one is right when YOU choose to make any point that YOU think needs to be made.
The Septuigent argument broke the camels back brother. You added no less than 3 new authorities to your list which disagrees with the TR.
Just a bunch of adhominem. I do not hate the KJV. I consider each translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, BHS, TR, NA27) to be God's Word.
In the spirit of Gal 6.1, I say your comments are childish and reveal that you need to spend less time on YouTube and more in the Word. I hope your friends are honest enough to tell you the same.
"I guess his God wasn't smart enough..."
"I thought If I said the 200-300 DC thing long enough that I could get id of you"
Amen Brother, the TR does not agree with the Alexandrian library manuscripts of the Sinaiticus, or Vaticanus, and Oregons' fifth column was never canonized as a volume of work that was endorsed by the scripture itself.
All 39 books of the Hebrew OT are either referenced, or directly quoted in the Bible. No book or passage of the Apocrypha is quoted or referenced anywhere in the scripture.
Canonizations rules as outlined by Jesus Christ have to be adhered to.
Seems to me that freesundayschoolless is his own final authority because he doesn't rest confident in any single source other than his own judgment to determine what should be kept, and what should be trashed when it comes to scripture.
In summary, our friendly discussion illuminated for me that the reliance of no less than 4 translation, the TR, the LXX, or Septuagint, Scholar footnotes, and extra biblical information not found in the Bible were required for freesundayschoolless to INDEPENTENTLY sort through, and draw his conclusions from.
Only he has the power to pick and choose what he feels is appropriate. So who is really the final authority ?
"the Septuagint did not exist, and even if it did, no scripture verifies any of your claims."
Well...I think we had better part ways now. It is apparent that you are so arrogant to not accept some gentle correction.
You believe that unicorns exist and say that the Septuagint did not. You are showing yourself to be unteachable. As a pastor (if you are) that is not a good quality.
"All speculation, but then again, most of what you have talked about is just speculation that God could not infallibly preserve his word in one book to the English speaking public."
You are changing the topic: You said, "precedence tells us there was only one translation at a time." I simply proved that there were more than one translation and Jesus was comfortable quoting from the inferior LXX. John 8:58.
"Let God be true, and every man a liar...No BC brother, all AD between 200-300 AD in fact."
Hmmmm...I didn't have to do a Google search. But, now that I did, I think it is time for you to take a break...I think you are tiring from the discussion today.
I usually begin to run away from discussions with KJVOnly types. I hope, in your case, you will begin to see that you are lacking in some areas:
-You are dealing with some arguments you have never faced before (the Neh 8.8 passage)
-You did not know that Jesus used the LXX.
I was educated in a KJVOnly church and college. It is not until I got out of that element that I appreciated God's Word. I hope the same for you. You are frustrated because you cannot ultimately defend the KJV as "perfect."
Let God be true, and every man a liar. Do a google search on the Septuagint brother. No BC brother, all AD between 200-300 AD in fact.
And even if it did exist, there is no scriptural evidence to substantiate that remark. All speculation, but then again, most of what you have talked about is just speculation that God could not infallibly preserve his word in one book to the English speaking public.
If God says they did, then they do. Two things for certain never existed , and that is the phony versions Nehemiah, and Christ supposedly quoted from quoted, which were never authorized, nor canonized.
Neh:9:3: And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the LORD their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the LORD their God.
Just keep reading all your modern day translations, and going to all your Scholarly institutions like the bible tells you to do, and everything will be hunky dorey brother, I;ve got to run, and it's been a slice.
If you are basing your argument that God preserved his word in the kjv on Ps 12:6-7, then your base just broke. The word 'them' in the Hebrew is masculine, but the word for 'words' is feminine, therefore the 'them' cannot be referring to the 'words.' If you do, then you are ignoring grammar and anyone ignoring grammar is either a deceiver or a liar.
MasoreticVsKJV 6 months ago
@MasoreticVsKJV
The KJV translators were second to NOBODY when it came to interpreting, and translating Hebrew and Greek into English. You, are a pee-on in comparison to those masters of language, just read their credentials. You, are your own final authority. The Almighty, is fully capable of giving man an infallible English translation, and he did just that.
kjvonly01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMEN!! AMEN!!AMEN!! Matt.5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Excellent post!!!
tk0inthefirst38 1 year ago
Prov 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
KJV
"Washed in His Blood" Rev 1:5 KJV
Jim
JimQualls 1 year ago
Why did you disable ratings my brother?
preachinshawn 2 years ago
Thank you, Brother Tim, for uploading this timely and edifying video, which exposes the shallowness and folly of the so-called "scholars" who follow in the footsteps of Wescott and Hort. Multiple errors and follies are founded on the myth that translation committees of contempo twits are doing people a favor by mistranslating the Scriptures into inferior, dishonest, incorrect, and misleading language.
God speed!
jjpetkusiii 2 years ago
@jjpetkusiii
As your aware, the internal evidence of the scriptures, speaks for itself. The Canon rules as disclosed in scripture is such, that a fifth grader can discern corruption without knowing a word of Greek or Hebrew.
And thanks for the Vivaldi, and Bach.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
You are true that the words of God are True. So why did the King James Translators change the greek word "pascal" which means Passover to read Easter in Acts 12:4? Your "perfect" translation has been found to be wanting. The TR that the King James was based on was produced primarily by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic scholar. Look into history. It has a story to tell. Get back to me after you read the "Translators To The Reader" Preface to the original 1611 A.V. I have one on my bookshelf.
DRYSIDECOUG 2 years ago
There are more than 20 manuscripts that make up the TR, so out of the gate, your argument is flawed. The same could be said about your contrived definition of Easter.
The truth is, you wouldn't know what a TR looked like if you were slapped up along the side of the head with one.
And if you were slapped up along side of the head with the TR, you wouldn't know how to read it. You have a problem understanding English, so just forget about the Greek or Hebrew.
You, are your own final authority.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
This was your first video...
It's a classic !
I have to fave it. =D
Kloudes 2 years ago
Thanks sis, I was a rookie on Youtube when I put this together, I was also a bit nervous.
Thanks for the moral support.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
Actually, his first video was his fire and brimstone video that you see on his channel page next to my first video. I just don't know why that video no longer lists FIRST in his videos... why is that, Tim?
icartoon2 2 years ago
I'm really not sure, in fact, I'm not even sure what video was my first, lol....
It may have been this video, but I cannot state that for certain.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
I am going to watch all of your videos.
By the way, are you Canadian? You sound like you are from Canada. If so, how is the weather there now?
vortexxman 2 years ago
Amen bro, I'm Canadian Eh!
kjvonly01 2 years ago
It's still pretty cool up here, 35-45 degrees, but it's starting to warm up a bit now.
kjvonly01 2 years ago
kjvonlyO1
Keep up the good work bro. I'm amazed at how sterile and inept these Bible corrector's are. They must subterfuge information to sound halfway intelligent. God bless you.
LBBspock 3 years ago
It is true that the KJV is superior and I agree that God's word will not pass away, but Psalm 12:7 is talking about preserving the righteous. "Help, Lord for the Godly man ceaseth" etc.
That is what the Psalm is about it doesn't change context back and forth.
The "words" in vs 6 is talking about God's promise to preserve the godly man.
If you look up "preserve" in KJV, it almost always is referring to people.
"The generation" in vs. 7 is talking about the wicked in vs. 8.
Thanks.
reconciled2God 3 years ago
Ps:12:6: The WORDS of the LORD are pure WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE THEM from this generation for ever.
The whole context of this passage, stand in relation to Gods WORDS, and NOT the preservation of man.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The reference you gave from Revelation applies only to the book of Revelation. You are trying to mislead people by taking that verse out of context.
GrandpaJim777 3 years ago
That verse in Revelation closes out ALL SCRIPTURE that is to be canonized, and many passages in Revelation have been tampered with as well.
2Tim 4:3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4: And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Cor:2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
2 thumbs down :( :(
WaitingforChrist 3 years ago
bumbacutthoat ( I mistakenly removed his post).
Asked the question, "what did they read before 1611?"
Before we had the AV 1611 there were a number of attempts to bring about an ENGLISH translation from the Old Hebrew, and Greek TR.
So the TR was the manuscript used as the authority. Ultimately, God simplified the complexity of having an authorized version of scripture by putting both Testaments, and languages into one volume of work in ONE language complete with chapter and verse markings.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Great thought. Unfortunately most of your Greek-Onlyists will want scripture to back this up. But I agree with what you say. The KJV is the perfect, pure word and words of God for the English speaking people of the world. Which, if you do thorough research will find most of the world can either read, write or speak English or a combination of the three.
tempusfugit68 3 years ago
That's right, like you said...you can believe it or ignore it but there it is for you just the same. Thanks for sharing the truth, brother. Keep up the good work and the faith.
tarheeltim32 3 years ago
I assure you, that nov251968aab is as rock solid of a Bible Believer as anyone I know, and that the sites he has subscribed to, or saved to his favorites, are there to generate discourse.
This is MY site, and I operate under different ground rules. I have better things to do, than to fight the same fights that can be found on all the KJV hater sites. My purpose, is to try and get material out there in defense of the book, and not rehash up old arguments of the past that simply recycle.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The line of questioning, and the close proximity to your posts coupled with a craftiness in subtly, is to coincidental to just be chance. If you are genuinely interested in the subject, continuous posting of material will be going up on an ongoing basis, but judging from your perceived conclusions of my efforts, I would encourage you to move on, and find someone more trustworthy and capable to aid in your journey of faith.
Tim
kjvonly01 3 years ago
nov251968 operates under a different premise than I do. He likes hits and discourse. I like to focus on material and substance. Nobody that I am aware of has set up 2 separate accounts to secure a place to post on my site, and I am very suspicious.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
You and nov251968aab are Bible correctors trying to make us look ignorant and uneducated! I bet you are Sundayschooldefiler! AVERY ONE WHO LOVES THE BIBLE Look at nav251968aab's channel he is promoting a Bible corrector website in plain view! He thinks we are stupid enough not to notice it!!!!
KJValltheway3 3 years ago
My former statement stands, I'll let God sort it out on the other side.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
So the truth comes out, how many more aliases do you have to slither your way around feigning to be someone that your not?
A deceptive conniving corrupter, does not deserve an apology. I made no mistake, I know who you are, and I intentionally blocked your crowd from MY forum. This alias will also be blocked.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
freesundayschooless here:
So, that is your apology?
neocon1980 3 years ago
Those questions have been asked and answered numerous times over in many forums. YOU, do not dictate what is addressed on this channel. I can permit what is deemed appropriate and edifying on this channel without YOUR permission. YOU will be permanently blocked, and anyone I thinks smells like YOU will be blocked.
Your blather about the Apocrypha, and your hatred of the KJV translators can be spewed on all YOUR forums, not mine.
I will not waste MY time on YOUR foolishness.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Freesundayschooless
There is a message that I typed out for when you click on ( more info ) next to the edit button.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Freesundayschooless;
Please stop pretending that you are anyway near as qualified as the KJV translators in either language. I'll be looking for more phony sock accounts in the future.
Mt:7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I empathize with the chaos, and confusion you may be experiencing. One thing is certain. God is not the author of confusion. You need not worry about applying Hebrew rules of language to your English. You need only to worry about what the English actually says.
I thank you for your prior email, and share your concerns. This format is not by any means the best to divulge in detail the concerns you have relative to the seven generations, however, I'll give it my best shot.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
When considering the seven generation process in it's entirety, rules of scriptural canonization come into play that carry on throughout the entire process. Those rules are given in more detail on the videos that I will be sending you.
We will be able to track all seven generations within the Old, and New Testament with the understanding, that all 66 books of the Bible do comply with the internal rules of scriptural canonization.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
When you view the videos in order, leave a comment so that I know where you are. I will attempt to highlight pressing items that carry over when the KJV is generated.
I'll be sending you generations 1-4. I have also compiled the material together for generation 5-7, which will be forthcoming. Pay close attention, and you will see patterns that are replicated with our KJV, and then some interesting scriptures relative to Israel, that are vital, yet difficult to solve using the Greek and Hebrew.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I knew that account the KJValltheway account, was a phony sock account for freesundayschooless.
Anyone who was really "KJValltheway" would have already bridged through that stuff long ago, and would have not been contending for the Apocrypha.
Nice try, both accounts are now blocked, however, I will be posting information after my trip on the weekend for REAL KJV defenders in relation to the KJV's inspiration, and preservation.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Yes there is, the context of the passage leading up to the subject "them" stands in relation to Gods words, and his promise to preserve them.
I will also send you a video, that gives a very brief synopsis on the internal generations of scripture, and their signatures of canonization within the scriptures themselves.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
KJVonly01,
I was looking at the passage that the faredawg person was talking about. Could you give your thoughts on verse five? I have heard these people use this verse before and I am unsure how to respond.
I have enjoyed your videos, God Bless.
KJValltheway 3 years ago
Could you refresh my memory, I'm uncertain exactly what verses you were referring to, Thank you.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Sorry, it was Psalm 12:5
Thank you.
KJValltheway 3 years ago
Ps 12:5: For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
These scriptures detail Gods promise to preserve his word. As your probably aware, they are absolutely loathed by Bible deniers, and correctors.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
In verse 5, God offers his consoling encouragement from the oppression of the enemy, that would rise in contempt against him, and then goes right into his promise of inspiration, and preservation.
The internal evidence of the scripture does reveal the development the generation process that have undergone a scriptural canonization. These generations have been recorded in the scriptures for our admonition, and learning.
It's all in there, God promised it, now we just have to find it.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I have felt it nessessary to put forward some ground rules so that the video posts can stay focused. If you are only coming on board to talk about extra biblical nonesense, you will be removed.
I will only use 1 attempt to direct the discourse toward Bible related themes. If that admonition is rejected your going to have to make up a new sock account and try again, because you will be gone.
Our time to valuable to waste on outside, none authoritative discourse that only fosters babbling.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
That prior post was only intended for a small minority, who love to monopolize a video with non productive hate filled none sense that we all can live without.
I have to say, the overwhelming majority are tuned in and primarily stay focussed on Bible related discourse, and for that, I give thanks.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"I have to say, the overwhelming majority are tuned in and primarily stay focussed on Bible related discourse, and for that, I give thanks."
Amen!
KJValltheway 3 years ago
Excellent.
random331 3 years ago
Good Video. No one should read the distorted modern (NIV) of the Bible. For example, in the original (KJV) of the Bible, it says that when a couple make love before they get married and are found, then the guy has to pay her and marry her. But the (NIV) perversion distorts it and says rapists can marry who they rape.
In truth the King James Bible actually says in Deut 22:25 that raping a woman was punishable by death.
galatian5 3 years ago
freesundayschoolless
I'm new to this, but I think I figured out how to unblock, I meant to moderate, and not to completely block you. Please accept my apologies, it was unintentional. If it was intentional, I would post a reason why.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Tim, you might consider taking the block off of Barry's accounts as he is primarily the only one offering a debate against the KJV. Kind of difficult to debate something when everyone is in agreement with your stance.
Just a thought brohter.
Andy
nov251968aab 3 years ago
Yeah Andy, I told him that if he had something new to talk about without getting into a mudslinging fest, that I would gladly allow him back on, until then, I'm holding true to my word.
I put a moderating block on everyone excluding friends. It seems to be the only way to tone down the rhetoric. If the party makes a compelling argument without the mudslinging, I'll gladly post.
I'm taking the block off to test the waters, but I'll put them right back if it's the same old same old....
kjvonly01 3 years ago
If I blocked that lad , I'm unaware of how I did it other than the moderating channel controls, and if I did block him , how do I unblock him other than allowing all comments on the channel, which I did?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
ECC 2.19 "And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool?"
I just wish I was born yesterday. The KJVOnly debate will be gone when our generation dies:
ECC 2.16 "For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!"
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Here is a post I received from edwardpf123 that I am posting for freesundayschoolless' benefit.
I received a message from Freesunday. He said that you were blocking some of his posts. I told him that I would contact you and let you know that if he wanted to discuss language/textual issues that would be fine with me as long as he kept the posts to a reasonable amount. I told him to direct those posts to me. If you want to let them go through, I would be happy to handle them.
Yours in Christ,
Ed
kjvonly01 3 years ago
If you had been born earlier, there would have been no debate since everyone knew what the Bible was, it was the AV1611!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
2Cor:11:3: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
1Cor:3:20: And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
So, what is it EDWARD? Is the use of Greek wide-open again? Or, are you, like your friends, going to back step and say we don't need Greek when you get cornered.
I have answers to these questions.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Never mind the Greek brother, you need to learn English first.
1Cor:14:19: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Ultimately, Bible correctors have to redefine, and re-translate what the qualified translators already have defined into English.
In the final analysis, your asking us to trust your translation into English rather than trusting in fully able bodied and qualified experts of Hebrew and Greek.
2Tm:1:12: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Sorry my friend, with all due respect, nobody who posts on this blog will ever measure up to the impeccable abilities that the KJV translators exhibited.
They were genuine experts, not self professing fools.
Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1Cor:3:18: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I must have missed a question that you raised, since I don't understand this one. What do you mean, 'the use of the Greek wide-open again? When you have 'cornered' anyone using the Greek? I noted that 'ego eimi' was not a special reference to the LXX as you claimed, but was used often in John. There is no need for Greek/Hebrew to understand the KJB since it is a perfect translation. If you think you can PROVE the translation is wrong because of the Gr. have at it.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
freesundayschoolless
If your comments are simply reduced to name calling, all of that material will be removed.
I can live my life with the knowledge that you, or many others may not agree. We can joke around and have fun with our differences as I have attempted to do, and that's fine.
If it comes to mud slinging, it's over, and all those posts will be removed.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
2Tm:4:2: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
2 Tim 3:16 refers that that which recorded in the Sword of the Spirit, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry document that ponds itself off as authoritative.
That sword has been trying to reprove, rebuke and exhort you to no avail on this issue of inspiration, and preservation.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Also see 2Tim 4:2
kjvonly01 3 years ago
You need to worry about the English, and stop cramming your head with stuff you can't figure out in other languages.
God made your job simple. Stop complicating the process and move ahead with your KJV.
You or I are not an authority in either Hebrew or Greek so stop pretending we are, and read the English. You don't have to be an authority, because the translators were, and they were experts in their work.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Neither did the KJV translators emphasize Aramaic, and I don't need a lesson in Greek, God gave me his word infallibly in the English.
You need a lesson the KJV English, and start trusting Ps 12:6-7.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Already explained, time to move on. You are forcing a square peg into around hole when there is simply no call for it. Your "sense" argument stopped making "sense", so I blocked it, because we were going over the same thing that has already been commented on.God never mentions the word Aramaic in the Bible as a language that was spoken and wishes to document on record as part of the scripture so I'm not putting any emphasis on it either.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I also answered your Aramaic question, and blocked it, time to move on.
Here is your quote on Gods inability to preserve his word.
"There are no perfect translations. The originals were perfect. Does that mean that it is not the Word of God? No. It simply means we must study these things. The more we study, the more our faith increases".
Mt:24:35: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I blocked that Ps 2:6-7 statement, It's time to move on. That text is very clear. Stop wasting our time and offer a reason why you disagree with Gods ability to preserve his word, (not the originals) infallibly as he states he will do in Ps 12:6-7.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
This video was on psalm 12:6-7, go back and read it. Nothing more to talk about, the scripture is painstakingly clear.
God promises to preserve his word, but you say only the originals are inspired, and they are all gone.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
That was already explained in the Babylon account, go back and read it. Aramaic was obviously spoken but the scripture is recorded in Hebrew.
The KJV translators were clear as already stated. They translated the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Greek New Testament into English. When the inscription was nailed on the cross, is was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, no Aramaic, sorry brother, your balloon just popped.
Jn:19:20: , Lk:23:38
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"God never promised to preserve the originals."
I never made that claim.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
But you are denying God the ability that he claims to have to preserve his word and deliver it to his people infallibly as a book he refers to, as the sword of the spirit.
Ps 12:6-7, 6: The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"He was merely making a statement."
Using the unique, exact language of the LXX. There are other passages: Mark 7.10.
In all, the original point is that there were various translations in Jesus' day. The LXX is generally considered an inferior translation. Yet, Jesus quoted it.
There are no perfect translations. The originals were perfect. Does that mean that it is not the Word of God? No. It simply means we must study these things. The more we study, the more our faith increases.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
God never promised to preserve the originals. What Bible are you reading from. God promised to preserve his words.
God gave us an early example of the emphasis that he places on originals When Moses came down from the mount, and broke the tables of stone.
When Jehudi took a penknife and cut out the test and burnt it, God added more scripture. Jer 36:23.
Then again when the scriptures were cast into the river Euphrates in Jer 51:63.
That is utter none sense.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
You came on this blog and stated that Christ quoted from the LXX in John 8:58. Christ has absolutely nothing for a document in front of himself in that account that he is quoting from. The passage that he eludes to is Ex 3:14 which can be found in the Hebrew Old testament, and the LXX was not required at all.
The only way any connection to the LXX in the Greek could be made, is if your are reading from a translation that came out of Alexandria Egypt, and not from the TR.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
kjvonly01: Sorry, but we are just going to have to disagree on this one. Without the Hebrew and Greek language skills, I cannot convince you.
Even so, the LXX existed during the time of Christ. He did not call it a "perversion." Whether He quoted from it or not, that is where we will have to depart.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
You don't have the Greek and Hebrew skills required either, if you talk about the Septuagint and the TR in the same sentence as authoritative. You told me all I need to know without a word of Greek or Hebrew.
Any God fearing Scholar would recognize that the two do not belong in the same sentence together much less include one another as an authority.
Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Christ never called it the Septuagint a perversion because he never ever refers to the document. He reads and quotes from the law, the prophets and the psalms, yet never mentions the word Septuagint anywhere.
Lk:24:44: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"'dynamic equivalence' in that passage-that is dealing with teaching what the passages meant. Sense- 'an ability to understand'"
Edward: I do not intend to sound demeaning, but you have a lack of theological understanding about inspiration and now illumination.
Neither Ezra nor the priests could give their hearers an ability to understand. That is the Holy Spirit's domain. All they could do is give the "sense" of the passage.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
That is really stretching it brother, now we have to go by what a man thinks a word ,might mean to qualify what the scripture says, rather than taking what the scriptures says about the scripture.
Fact:
Ezra spoke from the book of the law. (Hebrew)
Fact:
When his final writings were recorded , the writings are recorded in Hebrew, (end of story).
The KJV translators state that they translated the Hebrew Old testament, and the Greek New Testament into English.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Well, my friend it is you who has a misunderstanding of the Bible. 'Sense' simply means making it clear to the hearer, which Ezra did. No different than a teacher today does for the Christian when he guides him through the scriptures. So, what the Holy Spirit does after the 'sense' has been given is to confirm what he has heard is true.(1Thess.2:13) does nothing to change the meaning of the word. Philip gave the eunich the 'sense' (explained) Isa.53 (Acts 8) and the HSp confirmed it as true.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Thats right edwardpf123, our friend freesundayschoolless invents a new crisis after he fails to garner any support for his prior crisis.
The crisis rests in the area of not believing that the Almighty can supply and infallible book that God calls the sword of the Spirit.
Thats about the only crisis I've seen in this whole discourse.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
However, to say "that doesn't mean everything they always knew they were writing scripture." The following passages should suffice to make my point that they knew certain writings were Scripture and had a quality about them that was endued with God's power and is "the truth."
1Cor 2.4; Eph 1.17, 1Th 1.5, 1Th 2.13, 1Jo 2.20
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
None of those passages state that the writer of scripture had to know he was writing scripture when he wrote.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
"Not everything that these men wrote ended up in the Canon. They knew that they wrote with power and authority, but that doesn't mean everything they always knew they were writing scripture."
You are confusing two issues. Yes, I agree that not everything they wrote is inspired. The second letter to the Corinthians is lost. I believe (and am sure you do) that it was not preserved because it was not inspired. ---cont.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
All the Bible correctors try to do, is confuse the process, when it is quite simple. A mountain out of a molehill.
Genesis Chapter 10-11 at the tower of Babel God confounded with language , but the entire account is recorded on Hebrew. People spoke many languages in the Hebrew Old Testament, but the final writings were recorded in Hebrew.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Since you do not know Greek and cannot compare the LXX against the Hebrew, it is useless. Here goes anyways:
For the words "I am" Jesus says "hon en." The common way is "ego eimi." This is an exact match of the LXX phraseology. This is a very unusual way to say "I am," and the LXX accounts for the reading.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
That wording is also found in the Hebrew account of Ex 3. It proves absolutely nothing in relation to a direct quote from the LLX.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
In addition, you also have to factor in the version your reading from, and what Greek manuscripts are being pond off as a TR manuscript, Scholars love to play that game. However, I am is found in the Ex 3 account.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
One more thing, upon reviewing that scripture, no reading is actually taking place in that account of John 8:58. Christ could have been quoting from a document if he wasn't reading a document, and in that account, he was not reading or quoting anything.
He was merely making a statement.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
****corrected post
One more thing, upon reviewing that scripture, no reading is actually taking place in that account of John 8:58. Christ could ***** not have been quoting from a document if he wasn't reading a document, and in that account, he was not reading or quoting anything.
He was merely making a statement.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Actually I do know Greek and Christ uses 'ego eimi' in Jn. 8:28 and 9:9 as well. When Origen wrote the copy of the LXX we have today (2nd century) he had the NT in front of him. There was LXX in the Lord's day.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Correction: that should read, there was NO LXX in the Lord's day.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
EDWARD: "Correction: that should read, there was NO LXX in the Lord's day."
I thought the discussion was finished.
Even so, go to the deanburgonsociety and see what my former professor Thomas Strouse says. He makes it very clear that the LXX existed. I disagree with his article, but he contradicts your point quite adequately.
You guys have to get your historical facts correct if you are going to challenge me on the LXX.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
I havent spoken on this string too much. Im happier to watch you guys, but, I like to interject a little poke here and a little jab there at times and when someone leaves me an opening, well, Im gonna leap at it :o). That having been said, here it is freesunday.
Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me.
Still love me?
nov251968aab 3 years ago
There is no mss evidence of any BC LXX existing. Even what the scholars claim existed in BC was only the Torah, NOT the entire LXX of the OT. The current LXX is the work of Origen, who translated it after the NT had already been completed.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Actually, he says no such thing!
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Granting for a moment the unproved assumption that there was a complete LXX prior to Christ's ministry,
He[Christ] had no necessity to use the LXX, whether it was in existence or not in the first century.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
The previous statements are from the Thomas Strouse article and he does not give any support that the LXX existed during Christ's day.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Also, Jn. 10:7,9,11,14 have 'ego eimi' as well.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
freesundayschoolless , I blocked your last message relative to your insistence of the LXX in John 8:58. The reason, is because you keeping saying the same thing over and over with no biblical proof.
I will gladly accept a post that offers some proof, until then, I will block what you have already posted a half a dozen times or so.
Please offer some biblical proof to support your claims.
Thank you, Tim.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I have already made the case scripturally on the argument relative to God compiling volumes of work, and completing a canonization process that vindicates scripture as authoritative in the singular authority language used from the Bible itself.
Those weren't my words. It is you that asserts that man needs to compile a volume of books to adequately equip themselves in defense of the faith.
I am completely comfortable with the KJV, and my back is holding up very well.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Where does it say he didn't. Your the one cleaving to the growing list of modern day perversions, not I. Just look at the fruit, and which book comes under attack the most, and that will tell you which one is the book.
The internal evidence also agrees with the doctrinal expressions across the board in the KJV.
Your sitting here today railing on the KJV translators, while whole heartedly accepting the Septuagint as authoritative, while offering no biblical evidence to support any such claim.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"so when we are taking about a final translation into English, God only needs to perform his task once."
Where does it say in the Bible that God would only perform His task once per language? Or, is this an assumption?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
"Your entire beef, is with the KJV translators into English."
No. My "entire beef" is with you saying that the KJV is perfect. The KJV translators did a good job.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Ultimately, your beef is still with KJV translators because good, is not good enough.
God took it upon HIMSELF to secure the inspiration and preservation process of scripture.
I'm not relying on the translators, but on Gods ability to come good on his word to supply an infallible Word of God in a single authorized volume of work referred to as the sword of the spirit, (in the singular).
Eph:6:17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
God never tells us to:
Take every modern day translation known to man, and anything else that you think might be authoritative handed to you from scholars or bible institutions or seminaries.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"Your entire beef, is with the KJV translators into English. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention the word Septuagint, ever."
You can't have the argument both ways. The Bible never mentions KJV either. Should I ignore the KJV?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
In fairness to your argument, you are correct, I would however note that even the names given to the OT law are not scriptural names, but their writings have been revered and canonized.
In addition, I'm not the one claiming that Jesus Christ quoted from the KJV and then not supplying biblical evidence. Scholars claim that Jesus Christ quoted the LXX, and offer zero biblical proof to confirm their claims.
We are comparing apples to oranges here.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
By the way, those scriptures weren't my logic, they are what the scripture conveys about the scripture. It is your logic that stands in contrast to what the scripture notes relative to the book brother.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Jude:1:3: Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
By the way, have you found that verse about Paul and Jesus carrying a bag of books to deliver their message, we are still waiting with baited breath. I hope you back is holding up.
Do you have any more authorities that you would like to add to your list?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
In this text below, Jude warns of the need to contend for the faith,(singular), which was once, (singular), delivered unto the saints.
You nor I speak fluent NT Greek, or OT Hebrew, and neither do 95% of all Scholars. English happens to be the language of world commerce so when we are taking about a final translation into English, God only needs to perform his task once.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The Bible doesn't say that Jesus used the LXX, the scholars and our friend freesundayschoolless say that Jesus used the LXX.
God made your job easy in the English. I hear no rebuttals of the Hebrew OT text translated into Greek as authoritative in the Septuagintcoming from your camp.
Your entire beef, is with the KJV translators into English. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention the word Septuagint, ever.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"The prior examples all show the sword, or the word in the singular"
So, according to your logic, we should not use the KJV because we already had the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Why did we need another "Word?"
Jesus used translations (even the inferior LXX), why can't we?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Who are you calling "wise?" I never said I was wise. Who is wise?
Jesus used the LXX and the OT Hebrew Scriptures. We know this because he quotes the LXX in John 8:58. But, you don't know that because you are not equipped to study the Scriptures.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Christ never used any LXX so stop making up nonsense. No one in the NT ever quoted from the LXX. Except for some fragments of the Torah, there isn't even any evidence that a BC LXX ever existed! What most likely existed were Targums, Greek translations of various Hebrew Old Testament Books, but no single LXX BC has shown to have existed, no less being quoted by anyone in the NT.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Reposted with correction on 2Thes 2:10-11
The prior examples all show the sword, or the word in the singular, and this is what happens to those who do not have a love of the word, or the sword of the spirit,(in the singular).
2 Thes 2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The prior examples all show the sword, or the word in the singular, and this is what happens to those who do not have a love of the sword of te spirit, (in the singular).
1 Thes 2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Or this one :
Heb:4:12: For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Here is some more :
2Cor:4:2: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
Eph:6:17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Every admonition in the scripture in relation to the faith in written form is spoke of in the singular.
Lk:4:4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Rom:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
How about this one :
2Cor:2:17: For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
1 Corinthians 1:19: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20: And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Or did YOU come back to add a few more books to your growing list of authorities?
We don't wish to deprive our readers from any revelations from other sources that we may have missed.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I'm a defender of the faith, no titles or status seeking names here brother.
How is your back holding up, did you find that verse yet where Christ and Paul carry a bag full of books, or did come back to add a few more books to your growing list of authorities.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Are you a pastor?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
*should read "Is there"
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Is their any books I may have missed? We do not want to deprive our readers from every authority needed to grow in their Christian walk brother.
1Pt:2:2: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
Word, is in the singular.
Jn:17:17: Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Word, is in the singular.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Can you please show me the scripture where either Paul, or Jesus Christ carry around a bag full of books brother to prove their case!
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Poor guy must have a sore back carrying all those bibles and documents around on the evangelistic trail.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
*which, (corrected) in summary.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
New summary conclusion Based on freesundayschoolless's own statements.
I do not hate the KJV. I consider each translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, BHS, TR, NA27) to be God's Word.
So we have an admitted 7 translations, with the Septuagint which came from the Vaticanis, and Sinaiticus whiche vehemently disagree with the TR, and we are now adding 3 more bodies of work into the equation.
And of course, we haven't even mentioned the Scholar footnotes, nor the extra biblical information.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Well the problem, to be honest, is that if you really want to add the Septuagint to your list, your going to have to add the Vaticanis, and Sinaiticus to your growing list of authorities.
Ultimately, your still your own authority in the end.Only YOU can figure out which one is right when YOU choose to make any point that YOU think needs to be made.
The Septuigent argument broke the camels back brother. You added no less than 3 new authorities to your list which disagrees with the TR.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Just a bunch of adhominem. I do not hate the KJV. I consider each translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, BHS, TR, NA27) to be God's Word.
In the spirit of Gal 6.1, I say your comments are childish and reveal that you need to spend less time on YouTube and more in the Word. I hope your friends are honest enough to tell you the same.
"I guess his God wasn't smart enough..."
"I thought If I said the 200-300 DC thing long enough that I could get id of you"
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
They all cannot be God's words, since they come from different text-types and disagree with one another. God is not the author of confusion.
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Amen Brother, the TR does not agree with the Alexandrian library manuscripts of the Sinaiticus, or Vaticanus, and Oregons' fifth column was never canonized as a volume of work that was endorsed by the scripture itself.
All 39 books of the Hebrew OT are either referenced, or directly quoted in the Bible. No book or passage of the Apocrypha is quoted or referenced anywhere in the scripture.
Canonizations rules as outlined by Jesus Christ have to be adhered to.
Lk 24:44, Jo 5:39, Mat 23:35
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I guess his God wasn't smart enough to put it in 1 volume of the book.
Heb:10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Seems to me that freesundayschoolless is his own final authority because he doesn't rest confident in any single source other than his own judgment to determine what should be kept, and what should be trashed when it comes to scripture.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
In summary, our friendly discussion illuminated for me that the reliance of no less than 4 translation, the TR, the LXX, or Septuagint, Scholar footnotes, and extra biblical information not found in the Bible were required for freesundayschoolless to INDEPENTENTLY sort through, and draw his conclusions from.
Only he has the power to pick and choose what he feels is appropriate. So who is really the final authority ?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
*should have read "translations".
kjvonly01 3 years ago
[So who is really the final authority ?]
That IS the exact question! Is God's words the final authority or man's opinions and preferences?
edwardpf123 3 years ago
Hey I thought If I said the 200-300 DC thing long enough that I could get id of you. I guess I was wrong.
I knew that would drive a KJV hater up the wall, and it worked.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Good bye, and don't get to messed up on all those perversions.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I will leave now and let you have your last word...This is futile.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
And I might add, that you are adding to my statement. What I state on record agrees with the words of Christ, namely , one volume of the book.
Heb:10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
And, that Nehemiah read from the book, (singular) of the law, not from books, (plural).
Neh:8:1: , Neh:8:3
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"the Septuagint did not exist, and even if it did, no scripture verifies any of your claims."
Well...I think we had better part ways now. It is apparent that you are so arrogant to not accept some gentle correction.
You believe that unicorns exist and say that the Septuagint did not. You are showing yourself to be unteachable. As a pastor (if you are) that is not a good quality.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
You haven't proved ANYTHING, the Septuagint did not exist, and even if it did, no scripture verifies any of your claims.
My KJV shows only 1 book of the law quoted in the time of Nehemiah.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"All speculation, but then again, most of what you have talked about is just speculation that God could not infallibly preserve his word in one book to the English speaking public."
You are changing the topic: You said, "precedence tells us there was only one translation at a time." I simply proved that there were more than one translation and Jesus was comfortable quoting from the inferior LXX. John 8:58.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
"Let God be true, and every man a liar...No BC brother, all AD between 200-300 AD in fact."
Hmmmm...I didn't have to do a Google search. But, now that I did, I think it is time for you to take a break...I think you are tiring from the discussion today.
Anyone else out there going to help our brother?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
I usually begin to run away from discussions with KJVOnly types. I hope, in your case, you will begin to see that you are lacking in some areas:
-You are dealing with some arguments you have never faced before (the Neh 8.8 passage)
-You did not know that Jesus used the LXX.
I was educated in a KJVOnly church and college. It is not until I got out of that element that I appreciated God's Word. I hope the same for you. You are frustrated because you cannot ultimately defend the KJV as "perfect."
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Let God be true, and every man a liar. Do a google search on the Septuagint brother. No BC brother, all AD between 200-300 AD in fact.
And even if it did exist, there is no scriptural evidence to substantiate that remark. All speculation, but then again, most of what you have talked about is just speculation that God could not infallibly preserve his word in one book to the English speaking public.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
So, you believe that unicorns existed because it says so only in the KJV? Have you ever wondered about that?
Again, you have it wrong...the LXX was produced in BC, not AD.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Answered already Yes I do.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
The Septuagint was not translated into Greek till 200+ AD so it would have been hard to quote from a text that did not exist.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Third time I asked:
Do you believe in unicorns?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Christ quotes from the LXX in John 8:58.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Christ quotes from the volume of the book. Where you there?
kjvonly01 3 years ago
If God says they did, then they do. Two things for certain never existed , and that is the phony versions Nehemiah, and Christ supposedly quoted from quoted, which were never authorized, nor canonized.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Jesus used the LXX and Hebrew Old Testament guys.
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Nehemiah reads a translation from the book of the law guys...
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Neh:9:3: And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the LORD their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the LORD their God.
Nehemiah reads from 1 book of the law guys.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Heb:10:7: Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Christ mentions only 1 book here guys.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
I already qualified it brother, it is in the plural when stated in the plural, my little sister knows all about it.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
Have unicorns ever existed?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
You dont even know your KJV very well...
9 times the KJV says "unicorn" or "unicorns"
Do you believe they existed?
The KJV says they did. Did they exist?
freesundayschoolless 3 years ago
Just keep reading all your modern day translations, and going to all your Scholarly institutions like the bible tells you to do, and everything will be hunky dorey brother, I;ve got to run, and it's been a slice.
Tim
kjvonly01 3 years ago
"your multiple version rhetoric is nonesense."
--Jesus quoted from the LXX: Greek translation of the Hebrew OT
--Obviously, the Hebrew version of the OT was available.
evmikna 3 years ago
Horns of the unicorns, It is in the plural, just keep reading.
kjvonly01 3 years ago
It's not in my King Jimmie brother, and it's my final authority.
kjvonly01 3 years ago