Questions From A KJV-Onlyist

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Again, you are working under the false assumption that KJVO is doctrine. It is not.

I have never rebuked anyone for disagreeing with a doctrine. I wasn't remotely talking about the KJVO issue. My "doctrine" is based on the scriptures' revelation of how God preserves things. You can disagree all you want. Please correct me. I could be wrong. I used to be Charismatic. I was wrong. I used to believe one could lose salvation. I was wrong. I praise God for the loving brothers who exhorted and rebuked me with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Praise God for the doctrine of "exhorting" and "rebuking". that was what I was defending when I posted 2 Timothy 4:1-2.

Love Lacy

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alcott:
If the KJV is the "very wordS of God," then you can say to a person "YOU fool!" or "You're foolish!"... you just can't say "THOU fool!"

This isn't funny. It's not cute.</font>[/QUOTE]That makes 2 of you.

I'd be very careful that you don't win the battle and lose the war.

I'd rather win both.

Consider yourself rebuked.

Consider yourself a humbug.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
[QB] But some of the "speak" from the KJBO side seems pretty contemptuous of those of us who value "scholarship".

As I said, it seems that some of us are being a little selective when we
say "scholarship."

I absolutely agree on all points.

I can't speak for all KJVOs, but I think that the problem is with the context of the word "scholarship". I believe in Biblical scolarship. (Compare scripture with scripture, etc.) A King James Bible is the only one that says "Study to show thyself approved." We better study if we are going to claim to "believe every word". I think all Christians should value "scholarship."

My problem is when preachers stand up (Under the guise of scholarship) and completely undo a clearly scriptural doctrine by "going to the Greek". I don't call anyone a "Bible corrector" (The rules say not to.) But I have sat under preachers that "know more" than any translator because they have their handy-dandy K-Mart Greek concordance. That is not scholarship.

Love Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Alcott:

That makes 2 of you.

Consider yourself a humbug.

humbug (humbug)
n.
1 a) something made or done to cheat or deceive; fraud; sham; hoax b) misleading, dishonest, or empty talk; nonsense
2 a person who is not what he claims to be; impostor
3 a spirit of trickery, deception, etc.
4 [Brit.] a striped hard candy

I don't get it. I'm two pieces of striped candy?

Love Lacy

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:

My problem is when preachers stand up (Under the guise of scholarship) and completely undo a clearly scriptural doctrine by "going to the Greek". I don't call anyone a "Bible corrector" (The rules say not to.) But I have sat under preachers that "know more" than any translator because they have their handy-dandy K-Mart Greek concordance. That is not scholarship.

Love Lacy

Why would going to the Greek completely undo a clearly scriptural doctrine? The Greek would be more accurate since the New Testament originated in Greek.

 

[Phillip]

By the way, I'm not talking about someone who does not know Greek or is extremely weak at Greek like myself.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
I don't get it. I'm two pieces of striped candy?

If not, how many pieces are you?

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Why would going to the Greek completely undo a clearly scriptural doctrine? The Greek would be more accurate since the New Testament originated in Greek.

There is no more magic in a corrupted Greek text than in a corrupted English text. It might be just more of the same in a foreign language. "The" Greek may or may not be more accurate. Taking 15 or 18 hours of Greek at seminary does not qualify one to correct men who could translate Homer at age 10, or speak seven languages by age 15. There is more to translating than looking up a word in a Greek dictionary and using multiple choice to decide what definition we like better. Somewhere down the line we have to trust God that he can provide us with the truth in a book. And then He can back it up (like he did with true prophets)with fruit.

I mean that I have seen preachers reject a plainly stated verse, (Usually because it went against a pet doctrine.) and rummage around in other versions or Greek texts until they found something more to their liking. My question is who is submitting to who?


Love Lacy

 

[Dr. Bob]

I've found even a rudimentary Greek understanding can truly revolutionize the understanding of a text. Often the real meaning is not visible in a typical English translation.

I would never condemn someone who went to the original language to understand a word or concept that might help clarify the English. And with tremendouse Greek resources now available (in lexicons, grammars, etc) it is INCUMBENT on my before I preach any text to translate it from the Greek.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
Why would going to the Greek completely undo a clearly scriptural doctrine? The Greek would be more accurate since the New Testament originated in Greek.

There is no more magic in a corrupted Greek text than in a corrupted English text. It might be just more of the same in a foreign language. "The" Greek may or may not be more accurate. Taking 15 or 18 hours of Greek at seminary does not qualify one to correct men who could translate Homer at age 10, or speak seven languages by age 15. There is more to translating than looking up a word in a Greek dictionary and using multiple choice to decide what definition we like better. Somewhere down the line we have to trust God that he can provide us with the truth in a book. And then He can back it up (like he did with true prophets)with fruit.

I mean that I have seen preachers reject a plainly stated verse, (Usually because it went against a pet doctrine.) and rummage around in other versions or Greek texts until they found something more to their liking. My question is who is submitting to who?


Love Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]You may be right about faith. I have faith in my ESV.

Dr. Bob is right. By learning Greek you see things in a way that cannot be seen in English simply because Greek has (how would you say?) word-tenses that are not easily translated. I even questioned several verses when I started reading the ESV only to find out that they were very accurate.

You may be right about a ten year old reading Greek, but how would you know about 18 hours of Greek in college---did you take 18 hours of Greek?

If you have a preacher butchering the Greek--well, I guess that is possible. But, it is also very possible that you had a misconception of what the verse said based on the date of the language and the changes in word definitions over the years.

For example, the use of the word "them" referring to people after the scripture of God's Words are like silver......etc. This is an example of just lack of study of content and in context.

I have to agree with Bob on study of the Greek. You can have faith, but you can have faith in a belief that is not true, such as the KJV is the ONLY copy of God's Word in English. That is a good example of faith in something that simply is not scriptural.

 

[gb93433]

I like what my Greek professor said to the class when it first began. An understanding of Greek is like going from a 25 watt light bulb to a 100 watt light bulb in a room. The English will give some illumination but the Greek text will give much more.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
[QB Taking 15 or 18 hours of Greek at seminary does not qualify one to correct men who could translate Homer at age 10, or speak seven languages by age 15. There is more to translating than looking up a word in a Greek dictionary and using multiple choice to decide what definition we like better. Somewhere down the line we have to trust God that he can provide us with the truth in a book. And then He can back it up (like he did with true prophets)with fruit.

I mean that I have seen preachers reject a plainly stated verse, (Usually because it went against a pet doctrine.) and rummage around in other versions or Greek texts until they found something more to their liking. My question is who is submitting to who?


Love Lacy [/QB]

And I suppose that you believe ALL of the translators of the KJV 1611 were of this quality?

The way you are talking the translators were inspired. Do you really believe this?

From what you say --- comparing the translators to the prophets is taking quite a leap. Let me ask you a question. Since there were so many changes since the 1611 to the 1769 version of the KJV, who was inspired, the translators or the revisionists? It can't be both.

 

[KJV Warrior]

to whom it may concern, except the true KJVO. Question, can God contradict Himself? Every 'version' says something different. In some versions they refer to satan as The morning star, isn't that one of Christ's names? Rev 22:16, " I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Also some of the versions say that Mary was just a young girl, that is not the same as a virgin. Another verse Phil 2:6, " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" in other versions it says that Christ thought that He could not grasp being equal with God. The Bible is very clear that God is not the Author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33a, "For God is not the author of confusion," As for understanding the KJV the Bible says that the Holy Ghost will guide you into all truth. Also the person that reads the Bible must have the Spirit of God in him or he will never understand the Word of God because It is a spiritually discerned Book. 1 Cor2: 14, " 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."

 

[skanwmatos]

To whom it may concern, except the true NKJVO. Question, can God contradict Himself? Every 'version' says something different. In some versions they refer to Satan as The morning star, isn't that one of Christ's names? Rev 22:16, "I Jesus have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star." Also some of the versions say that Mary was just a young girl, that is not the same as a virgin. Another verse Phil 2:6, "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God." In other versions it says that Christ thought that He could not grasp being equal with God. The Bible is very clear that God is not the Author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33a, "For God is not the author of confusion." As for understanding the NKJV the Bible says that the Holy Ghost will guide you into all truth. Also the person that reads the Bible must have the Spirit of God in him or he will never understand the Word of God because It is a spiritually discerned Book. 1 Cor 2: 14, "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

KJV warrior,

Amen to your post! I don't remember seeing you post here before, are you new to these threads? Welcome! But beware, for many here unfortunately falsely label us with the Ruckmanite crowd and all that comes with it. Nothing could be further from the truth, and because they have assumed we think and believe exactly like Ruckman, etc., they do not really listen/read what one says which is the cause to their misunderstanding what is said. It is very sad to see, and for bretheren to be attacking fellow bretheren as though they are enemies, rather than brothers/sisters in Christ. I have said all I can possibly say to all here regarding this issue, which they end up continually turning the facts, and truth of this issue into irrelevant circular arguments and blatant questioning of ones salvation, and literally claiming (with a know it for sure attitude) that the conviction the Lord has put upon our heart concerning this issue and based on the scriptures and the faith in God's promises, is not the truth, and that one is only listening to thier "own spirit". Such accusations, from those who are our brothers in Christ are unbelievable to me, to say the least. Beware, for it can get very nasty in here.

I will keep you in my prayers, that the Lord may give you the strength, courage and wisdom to share the truth concerning this very important issue. I also will continue to pray for all on these threads, that the Lord will open their eyes and hearts concerning this. May the Lord richly bless you KJV Warrior!

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by KJV Warrior:
Also some of the versions say that Mary was just a young girl, that is not the same as a virgin.

If you had done a little study you would know the difference.

The prophecy in Is. 7:14, talks about a young woman in the Hebrew text. If you were to even look at the overall cultural context it would be a virgin as well. To use the word virgin is an interpretation and not a direct translation. However the LXX did use the word virgin. Again the word in the LXX is an interpretation.

If you were to read the book, "Jerusalem in The Time of Jesus" by Jeremias would be a big help to you.

Only in today’s culture would there be a difference between a virgin and a young woman.

So the thing you think to be so major is really not even an issue.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Only in today’s culture would there be a difference between a virgin and a young woman.

So the thing you think to be so major is really not even an issue.
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

So if todays culture cannot understand that a young woman in ancient times was in most cases a virigin, how then can you not see the issue, when todays culture is reading a "young woman"
in their bibles, and relating this to the culture of today? Virgin is what is the correct and accurate rendering of the passage and God has preserved this rendering for hundreds of years, and ecspecially for todays culture, to which most young woman are no longer virgins. Now there is the possibility that the young reader (maybe even older readers) will not see the importance of the virginity of Mary and the miracle of God in this and the important fact that she was a virgin and how important it was regarding the birth of Jesus. IT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

I have said all I can possibly say to all here regarding this issue, which they end up continually turning the facts, and truth of this issue into irrelevant circular arguments and blatant questioning of ones salvation, and literally claiming (with a know it for sure attitude) that the conviction the Lord has put upon our heart concerning this issue and based on the scriptures and the faith in God's promises, is not the truth, and that one is only listening to thier "own spirit".

michelle

So you have a corner on the Holy Spirit market? Nobody listens to God like you?

Ezra 7:10, “For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel.”

My Bible says that we are to be diligent students.

2 Timothy 2:15, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.”

You should be ashamed of your ignorance and exaggeration. Repeatedly I have asked you for facts to debate not emotional appeal. But again you have ZERO facts to substantiate your great claims that you wrote in a previous post.

Who has ever questioned your salvation? Give some facts not jargon.

Point me to one fact you have given in your previous post. Otherwise you need to cease such gossip.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
If you had done a little study you would know the difference.

The prophecy in Is. 7:14, talks about a young woman in the Hebrew text. If you were to even look at the overall cultural context it would be a virgin as well. To use the word virgin is an interpretation and not a direct translation.

I disagree. Naarah and B'thuwlah do not always mean virgin, but can mean widow. God did not use either of these words to describe the appointed carrier of His Holy One. Both Naarah and B'thuwlah, when the intended meaning is a true physical virgin, require qualifying language, IE; Gen. 24:16, Judges 21:12....God used Almah because it needed no qualification. (See Matt 1:23 for the Holy Spirit Inspired Translation of the Hebrew 'alma.')

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:

--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

Only in today’s culture would there be a difference between a virgin and a young woman.

So the thing you think to be so major is really not even an issue.
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

So if todays culture cannot understand that a young woman in ancient times was in most cases a virigin, how then can you not see the issue, when todays culture is reading a "young woman"
in their bibles, and relating this to the culture of today?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Why would you have a problem with something that might be a little more difficult to understand? The word of God in IS 7:14 directly translates “young woman.” Why would you have a problem with that? Why go beyond the direct translation to suit your personal agenda and interpret as well. Are you not against that?

Some need to study their Bible to better understand what its message is. The Bible is often like one side of a telephone conversation. You will not understand all that much until you begin to understand the historical background behind the books of the Bible.

“Virgin” is a correct interpretation in Is. 7:14 but not a correct translation.

“Virgin is what is the correct and accurate rendering of the passage and God has preserved this rendering for hundreds of years, and ecspecially for todays culture, to which most young woman are no longer virgins.”

You are KJVO and advocate this? The problem is not with the text, but the problem is interpreting scripture in light of today’s context. That is a common mistake and must never be done. Scripture is always interpreted in past tense and applied in present tense.

In the NT it is quite clear the young woman is a virgin. If one cannot see it then they are completely ignoring the culture of the OT and the actual wording in the NT. So what’s the problem with staying true to the original written text?