Featured Why Not More Doctrinal Unity Among Greek Students

Does Matthew 4:4 actually state or teach that there has to be one present every-word perfect Bible or one every-word perfect English Bible translation?

Do these KJV-only advocates think through the logical implications or consequences of their own assertions and reasoning? How does anyone live by a single word such a definite article or indefinite article or a conjunction? Does Matthew 4:4 make any mention of the process of printing a book or of the process of Bible translating? Do some KJV-only advocates in effect presume to tell God what Matthew 4:4 has to mean? Does Matthew 4:4 teach that it is God’s responsibility to provide every person with an every-word perfect Bible? Is a new KJV-only interpretation or understanding of Matthew 4:4 applied consistently and justly both before and after 1611 and applied justly to all languages? Was a new KJV-only interpretation perhaps conceived or invented to try to justify non-scriptural claims for the KJV? Are there any other possible sound understandings concerning what Matthew 4:4 is teaching that would agree better with the whole counsel of God? At times, are KJV-only advocates possibly guilty of “understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm” (1 Tim. 1:7)?

 

@JD731

When you ask about the lack of doctrinal unity, I considered you where making a serious effort of discovery.

then you post

It is evident there are assumptions made, in that quote, without knowing the facts, concerning the state of our fellowship with the Father and His Spirit, and disputing easily verifiable statements made by my posts.

You presented a valid question in the op, one that deserved thoughtful response in which I have attempted to present.

Therefore, I offer to you the very thinking of the KJV translators:
1) the need to keep the translation in the common understandable word usage of the people.

Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed.​

2) A statement concerning previous translation work:

And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. ​

3) That ANY English translation is not just containing but is the very Word of God:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where.​

4) Fault finding in any translation and proper correction should be expected and accepted for one is without error:

Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us.…

…Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded….​

5) The ultimate desire was to have a translation that was both faithful and served the most common (vulgar) person:

But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar.​

Let it be understood by all readers. The KJV of 1611 has undergone hundreds of changes as discovery has manifested the need and the English language changes.

Not a single KJV only advocate uses the 1611, but some later translation that has been revised and corrected hundreds of times. The most recent that I am aware at this time is the highly reputable work found here: https://www.cambridge.org/us/academ...king-james-bible?format=HB&isbn=9780521771009

I do enjoy the KJV, but it is not the only valid translation of the Scriptures, and wise scholarly presenters of The Word should consult multiple credible translations.

If one truly seeks to bring unity, then keep the balance, study to understand, and do not be ashamed of the Scriptures in any faithful translation, lest one be found attempting to bring disgrace to God’s Word by discrediting a translation.

 

What do Jews call non-JEWS?
“Goy” - heathen, nations other than the Jewish people.

the word “people” is leom and it indicates a gathering or community.

There is NO doctrine dismantled, nor validity diminished no matter how many renderings you have chosen to post.

Did you not post that you used the Strong’s?

As always, if those who remain far more clear in the language translation work look and see that I have rendered the words properly, and if not, please do not hesitate to correct me. I crave your correction that I not be in error.

 

1) There is no advantage in knowing and studying the original languages unless one is either a translator, or is interested in back-checking the various translations for possible errors, in my opinion. If a translation is performed using the correct manuscripts and is done faithfully and carefully, it will reflect what the originals contained... as well as preserving and effectively carrying it all over to the target language.

2) They don't all have the same insight because not everyone who claims to be a Christian actually has the Holy Spirit of God in them.
For example, some people hear about the eternal benefits of being a Christian and say, "how can I get that?", and then follow a formula that some preacher gives them to "get saved"...
while others have actually had a life-changing experience through the work of God's Spirit and recognize the truth of His preached words, revealing their sinful condition and God's provision of a Saviour for them.

In other words, some people try to get a hold of God and seek Him for the benefits of salvation,
and some people God gets a hold of and they seek Him from a genuinely changed heart.

Please see Matthew 13 / Mark 4 and Luke 8's parable ( and explanations ) of the sower and of the tares, as well as Matthew 7:21-23.
Not everyone who says to Him, "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven...

Not everyone who claims to be born again, actually is.

 

John gave simple to follow instructions concerning discerning who to follow and how to mark charlatans.

Is it possible that the modern believers spend so much time in Paul's writing they neglect the writing of John?

I realize that his letters seem to be like talking to me (somewhat circular), but he does follow exactly what the Lord told him to write, and he didn't offer his own opinion as Paul states he did by saying, "I have no word from the Lord..." yet continuing to write as if he did.

 

Your allegation is bogus and false. I nowhere insisted that the Greek words do not mean what they say. I believe what the Greek words state. You seem to misunderstand what both the Greek and English words at Matthew 4:4 state. You are the one trying to insist that the words mean something that they are not actually saying.

 

What are the possibilities of the meaning or interpretation of “every word” at Matthew 4:4?

It could be noted that the same Greek word translated “word” at Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4 is also translated by the KJV translators themselves as “saying” six times (Mark 9:32, Luke 2:17, Luke 2:50, Luke 9:45 [twice], Luke 18:34). Does that fact indicate that “every saying” would have been considered by the KJV translators to be an acceptable alternative rendering for “every word”? Would “every word” (Matt. 4:4) possibly be parallel in meaning to “every precept” (Heb. 9:19)? Would “every word of God” (Luke 4:4) be in harmony and in agreement with “all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord” (Luke 1:6)? Would Luke 1:6 indicate that Zacharias and Elisabeth could be considered examples of two who lived by every word of God? If every word could mean every saying, every command, every ordinance, every precept, or every instruction of God, then perhaps KJV-only advocates may have jumped to a wrong conclusion in their new claim concerning Matthew 4:4.

At Luke 4:4, the 1560 Geneva Bible has the following marginal note for “word”: “That is, by the ordinance, and providence of God.” Is that firsthand evidence that believers in that day had a different understanding of “every word” than post-1900 KJV-only advocates present? Did any of the early English Bible translators including the KJV translators suggest that Matthew 4:4 taught or required that they had to make a perfect every-word translation? Can any commentaries or writings by believers be cited from the 1500’s, 1600’s, or 1700’s that state that they understood Matthew 4:4 to teach what a few KJV-only authors recently assert? If this new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 was true, would it not have been necessary for English-speaking people to have been provided with a perfect every-word English translation many years before 1611?

KJV-only advocates would likely assert that “word” is the better or correct rendering at Matthew 4:4. However, they seem to ignore or avoid the fact that this rendering “word” [singular in number] in the KJV can actually refer to a saying or statement made up of several words. Clear evidence from the KJV itself would demonstrate this observation to be true. For example, “the word” at Matthew 26:75 and Mark 14:72 refers to an entire statement made by Jesus as recorded in Matthew 26:34 and Mark 14:30. At John 2:22, the word [singular] referred to an entire statement by Jesus as stated in John 2:19. Does “the word of faith” in Romans 10:8 refer to one single individual word so that the apostles preached a message comprised of only one word? Were the believers preaching the word (Acts 8:4), preaching a message comprised of only one word? Does the “word [singular] that I have spoken” (John 12:49) refer to one single word? When Mary said “be it unto me according to thy word” [singular] (Luke 1:38), it did not refer to one single word. The nobleman believed “the word” [singular], and it clearly referred not to a single word but to an entire statement made by Jesus [“Go thy way, thy son liveth” (John 4:50)]. Does “word” in John 17:20 refer to a single word? In an Old Testament example, the rendering “word” [singular] in Numbers 3:16 is used for instructions made up of over twenty words (Numbers 3:14-15). In another Old Testament example, “word” [singular] in Exodus 8:31 refers to sayings or statements made by Moses that consisted of several words (Exod. 8:29). These examples from the KJV itself should soundly demonstrate this point that “word” [singular] can refer to a saying, a command, a precept, or an instruction made up of several words instead of having always to refer solely to one single word. Do these examples from the KJV itself indicate that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 could be mistaken?

Can KJV-only advocates demonstrate from the Scriptures that early believers in the book of Acts had the same understanding and interpretation of the words of Jesus presented in Matthew 4:4 as they present or suggest in their writings? Did the early believers who “were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1) “preaching the word” (Acts 8:4) have every-word perfect and complete copies of the entire Old Testament that they carried and took with them? When people in Samaria “had received the word of God” (Acts 8:14), does it really mean that each one of them had to have in their hands an every-word perfect and complete copy of the entire Old Testament and in their hands an every-word perfect and complete copy of any New Testament books that had been already written? Is that not what typical KJV-only reasoning seems to require according to their new interpretation of Matthew 4:4? If any people in Samaria had a copy or scroll, it would have likely been one of the imperfect Samaritan Pentateuch instead of a perfect and complete Hebrew Masoretic text. Perhaps KJV-only authors have not thought through how a just application of their claims concerning Matthew 4:4 may affect other scripture passages.

 

You keep attempting improperly to put words in my mouth that I did not say. You improperly try to say that I believe things that I did not say that I believe. You do not break down what I stated as you try to distort and twist it into something that I did not say. I nowhere stated that man should not live by every word of God. I did not deny what Matthew 4:4 states as you incorrectly allege. I believe what Matthew 4:4 states.

What I pointed out is that KJV-only advocates may be misunderstanding and misinterpreting what Matthew 4:4 states when they try to suggest or imply that it means that God is required to provide an every word perfect translation. Matthew 4:4 does not say anything about an every word perfect Bible translation.

I pointed out from the KJV itself how "every word" can soundly mean "every precept" or "every instruction."

Could it be KJV-only advocates who may be insisting that the Scriptures cannot be understood without an exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611 to guide us and a KJV-only advocate to interpret them?

 

John did not write concerning the same thinking that dominates the other gospels.

Each of those others has as a theme some aspect in which demonstrates the authority of the Lord to the Jews as their Messiah king (Matthew), and Luke (a gentile physician possibly from Ephesians), writing to a friend, gives many accounts of what the friend has heard and marks the miracles that typical physicians cannot perform, and Mark (a gentile- John Mark) is writing from a linear view of events to give a time line to what happened next.

John is writing concerning the inner personality and authority from the perspective of one who loved Him the most, as one who was trusted above others (for the Lord's mother was given to his care) and from one who endured much until he died as the aged ones tend to do. All his accounts are written far after the others, and he is not reliant upon nor purposed to write in the same themes the others view as important.

John's gospel and letters were written to Gentiles, NOT to Jews. He uses Gentile time, and Gentile thinking. He was in Ephesus not long after Mary died and was buried and he remained as the head of that church educating many including Polycarp.

John is extremely precise in his writing and use of words. At no time does he use hyperbole with the exception of accurately quoting others that use wild exaggerations for emphasis.

It is John who not only records that God loved and gave, but in the Revelation that love is continued. In all other books the love is in the past tense, but John's writing in the Revelation places the love of God as present tense and active.

It is John who gives the last prophecies and very accurately recorded all that was told and shown to him except the thunders which he was told to keep to himself and not share. What a man, that God could trust him with such a secret! None others were given such charges.

It is John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, that I plan to sit under and listen, for the devotion he had to the Lord surpassed them all.

Certainly, Gentiles were not looking for a Savior. Do not the Scriptures state that Isaiah said of the Lord, "I became manifest to them that asked not for me; I was found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold, I am here, to a nation, who called not on my name."

John Spent more time with Gentiles then he did with Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Paul was a missionary to the gentiles, and John, who as an eye witness to all the events of Jesus, was the teacher/preacher/leader of the Gentile church.

 

I did not deny Matthew 4:4 so your allegation would bear false witness.

I believe what Matthew 4:4 states, and I believe it the same way that the early English translators including the KJV translators understood it. It was likely the same way that most English-speaking believers understood it until KJV-only advocates started misinterpreting and misapplying Matthew 4:4 in order to try to find a verse to support their non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. As already pointed out, Luke 4:4 demonstrates that the new KJV-only interpretation of Matthew 4:4 is incorrect. Matthew 4:4 is not teaching that there has to be an every-word perfect translation.

 

I believe what appears in print. You keep trying to reading into what I stated something that I did not say.

I do not believe your modern KJV-only interpretation that cannot even be consistently and justly applied. You cannot apply your own interpretation to before 1611 since that would make the KJV wrong for changing many words in the pre-1611 English Bible and wrong for adding some words and omitting some words in it. Matthew 4:4 does not at all suggest a every word perfect Bible translation.

 

I did not say that it had to be translated precept. Do you avoid the fact that the KJV translated the same Greek word as saying in some places? I demonstrated from the KJV itself that the rendering "word" [singular in number] can and does refer many times to an entire statement or to several words instead of referring to one single word.