PART 3: You can read and understand the Greek Texus Receptus, however, Christians don't have access to the original Hebrew and Greek and couldn't read them if we did. So if the KJB was not inspired and has errors and we don't have access to the ancient manuscripts how do we trust anything the KJB or any of the other bible versions say? Do we trust and believe that the men who have written these bibles got most of it right but some of it are their own thoughts and ideas and we just have to hope for the best? That doesn't sound like the God I know who would only have the original manuscripts interpreted by the Holy Ghost and leaving it at that when He knew we would need a completely trustworthy translation in the language that would end up to be known by a good part of the world and to be sure it was entrusted to the English who He knew would guard it and keep it exactly the same down through the ages. If the Texus Receptus disagrees with Strong's then I guess we're all up a creek without a paddle and the only few rare Christians who have copies of the original manuscripts and can read and understand them are the ones who are assured of knowing the whole truth.
This is ridiculous, of course. No one that I know of has said that the authors of the modern "so called" versions of the bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost when writing them because we all know they were authored by men. So it seems to me, if we are to believe that all the versions of the bible, new and old, were written by men why trust any of them?
BECAUSE WE NEED A TRANSLATION WE CAN TRUST, ONE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE HOLY GHOST NOT HUMANKIND; THE KJB! God Bless :)
I don't recall saying that the KJB is the best version among modern versions. I did say that I read and study from the KJB and that it was my bible of choice. I also said that I trust the KJB and that there were a few other "modern" bibles that I trust just the same as I do the KJB. That, I recall saying.
Please allow me to explain my comments on Matthew 1:18. I don't expect you to agree. This comes from my own personal study. In Matthew 1:1, it is the word GENESEOS which refers to lineage. In Matthew 1:18, it is GENESIS, the same as the first book of the bible, meaning origin. Genesis is known as the book of origins because that's what the word Genesis means. It's the same word used in Matthew 1:18. The word GENEA used in Matthew 1:17 means generation or generations.
There are several variations of the Greek word GENESIS which all imply something different. In Matthew 1:18, we see the word birth (GENESIS), but then the exact same word (birth) used in Luke 1:14 where it speaks of the birth of John is not the word GENESIS that's used in Matthew 1:18. The word birth in Luke 1:14 is the word GENNESEI, and it refers to birth as we understand birth being the result of a human mother and father. This cannot apply to Jesus. That's why Matthew was careful not to use the word birth.
Matthew is calling it an origin. If we believe in the eternal deity of Christ, then it makes more sense. Thayer's Greek Lexicon shows the word GENESIS as meaning origin, same word used in Matthew 1:18.
I don't have access to the original Hebrew and Greek either. I have learned to read Greek, and I do realize that not everyone can read Greek. But what I've learned (still learning) is available to anyone who has the desire to learn.
Thank you for reading these studies. I'm assuming that you just begun with Matthew Chapter 1. I hope I'm not going at too fast of a pace. I will begin posting from John's gospel probably tomorrow night, Lord willing.
This whole discussion is really very simple, kind of like flipping a coin. It has to be heads or tails, one or the other. Heads is a book written by God with no errors. Tails is a book written by man's intellect. If we flip the coin and get tails we get a man written book and If one thing is written wrong how do we know what to believe is the truth?
You say you trust the KJB without it being inspired by the Holy Ghost and even some of the other modern bibles around. How are you able to do that?
Maybe God didn't really flood the whole world and destroy everyone except the 8 on the ark. Maybe it wasn't just 8. Maybe Noah took his favorite nephew with him even though he wasn't a godly man so the authors thought best to keep that part out of the story and maybe that nephew convinced Noah to plant the vineyard because the nephew was a drunk and he wanted his wine and maybe so on and so on and so on. I could take any part of the bible and say the writer got it wrong and decide for myself to believe what I want.
Maybe I don't have to get saved because God has such a great love for me He's going to take me to heaven and not make me suffer for my sins. There are a lot of people who actually believe this false doctrine today. But how do I know it's a false doctrine? BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
I really don't understand how you can think a book written by men to be trustworthy and I'm sorry you don't believe the Holy Ghost was able to write the KJV Bible.
Hello Momsage. I don't mean to disrupt your exchanges with brother Jesse on this important topic, but thought to just share just one example of how I read the Bible (KJB) comparing to what Jesse has taken great pains to bring to us & particularly to answer you.
I randomly selected a reference in one of his posts (at Part 24) to take as my example; and that is Matthew 27:3, "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders". Jesse's focus was on the word 'repent'.
I thought to myself when I read the verse for myself, 'what goes through my mind (my understanding) when I read that verse; if Judas' did repent for his horrible behavior, which he cannot undo, did his repentance manage to secure salvation before he suicided?' Or, maybe God didn't accept his repentance & condemned him to hell anyway, which then causes one to wonder whether God doesn't always accept our repentance. Compare Judas' with the thief on the Cross; why was the thief forgiven & not Judas? When I read this verse (prior to Jesse's explanation), I would always wonder about Judas' eternal state. And so I bring up this verse to you (as I did to myself); how do you normally read & understand it: 'was Judas' repentance unto salvation or not'? If not 'unto salvation', then what does repentance actually mean to us when we read it in the Bible or even apply it to our own lives?
Given the word usage in Greek for 'repentance' (METANOEO or METAMELOMAI) that Jesse shared, (& his explanation I won't duplicate here), my understanding of this verse was now made very much clearer than when reading it in English. And I'm sure you would have noted this as well, for the English word 'repentance' doesn't correctly explain Judas' response to his evil act. So, were the KJB translators wrong in using 'repentance'? Onto Page 2.
No, that's the only word we have in English (unless notes are added to explain further). Every time you & I read this verse, we might be left wondering about Judas' repentance. But now with clarity from the Greek, we can read that verse with greater understanding & certainty of Judas' heart response to his evil act: that it wasn't a repentance as we would normally understand the word, but he was simply a sorry, ashamed man for doing what he did to the pure & holy Son of God & this type of response could never secure him, or us, salvation.
What then does such an example, as I've given here, do to our reading of the KJB? The inspiration of the KJB is certainly clear, but to our understanding from the translation work, it gives the very real possibility of misunderstanding & leading us to believe/accept something not intended by the inspired writer (in this case, Matthew). This is not the fault of the translators, but the fault of any translation work from one language to another. Is there a solution, except for the obvious that we all learn to read Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek? Since that is not possible nor expected, brother Jesse has gone to great lengths to at least give us a few Scriptures that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood & has brought us clarification. At least on a personal level, this work of his must be greatly appreciated, which in turn helps us to read the KJB more correctly & I hope as the KJB translators would have hoped that we also do, since they weren't allowed to expand their translation with explanatory notes. Hence, some 'modern' translations try to overcome the old English & other limitations, but unfortunately, the addition or omission of certain verses/passages make their usefulness untenable (to me at least), so I stick with the KJB. Blessings.
This is ridiculous, of course. No one that I know of has said that the authors of the modern "so called" versions of the bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost when writing them because we all know they were authored by men. So it seems to me, if we are to believe that all the versions of the bible, new and old, were written by men why trust any of them?
BECAUSE WE NEED A TRANSLATION WE CAN TRUST, ONE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE HOLY GHOST NOT HUMANKIND; THE KJB! God Bless :)
I don't recall saying that the KJB is the best version among modern versions. I did say that I read and study from the KJB and that it was my bible of choice. I also said that I trust the KJB and that there were a few other "modern" bibles that I trust just the same as I do the KJB. That, I recall saying.
Please allow me to explain my comments on Matthew 1:18. I don't expect you to agree. This comes from my own personal study. In Matthew 1:1, it is the word GENESEOS which refers to lineage. In Matthew 1:18, it is GENESIS, the same as the first book of the bible, meaning origin. Genesis is known as the book of origins because that's what the word Genesis means. It's the same word used in Matthew 1:18. The word GENEA used in Matthew 1:17 means generation or generations.
There are several variations of the Greek word GENESIS which all imply something different. In Matthew 1:18, we see the word birth (GENESIS), but then the exact same word (birth) used in Luke 1:14 where it speaks of the birth of John is not the word GENESIS that's used in Matthew 1:18. The word birth in Luke 1:14 is the word GENNESEI, and it refers to birth as we understand birth being the result of a human mother and father. This cannot apply to Jesus. That's why Matthew was careful not to use the word birth.
Matthew is calling it an origin. If we believe in the eternal deity of Christ, then it makes more sense. Thayer's Greek Lexicon shows the word GENESIS as meaning origin, same word used in Matthew 1:18.
I don't have access to the original Hebrew and Greek either. I have learned to read Greek, and I do realize that not everyone can read Greek. But what I've learned (still learning) is available to anyone who has the desire to learn.
Thank you for reading these studies. I'm assuming that you just begun with Matthew Chapter 1. I hope I'm not going at too fast of a pace. I will begin posting from John's gospel probably tomorrow night, Lord willing.
Blessings to you also!
This whole discussion is really very simple, kind of like flipping a coin. It has to be heads or tails, one or the other. Heads is a book written by God with no errors. Tails is a book written by man's intellect. If we flip the coin and get tails we get a man written book and If one thing is written wrong how do we know what to believe is the truth?
You say you trust the KJB without it being inspired by the Holy Ghost and even some of the other modern bibles around. How are you able to do that?
Maybe God didn't really flood the whole world and destroy everyone except the 8 on the ark. Maybe it wasn't just 8. Maybe Noah took his favorite nephew with him even though he wasn't a godly man so the authors thought best to keep that part out of the story and maybe that nephew convinced Noah to plant the vineyard because the nephew was a drunk and he wanted his wine and maybe so on and so on and so on. I could take any part of the bible and say the writer got it wrong and decide for myself to believe what I want.
Maybe I don't have to get saved because God has such a great love for me He's going to take me to heaven and not make me suffer for my sins. There are a lot of people who actually believe this false doctrine today. But how do I know it's a false doctrine? BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO.
I really don't understand how you can think a book written by men to be trustworthy and I'm sorry you don't believe the Holy Ghost was able to write the KJV Bible.
God Bless :)
Hello Momsage. I don't mean to disrupt your exchanges with brother Jesse on this important topic, but thought to just share just one example of how I read the Bible (KJB) comparing to what Jesse has taken great pains to bring to us & particularly to answer you.
I randomly selected a reference in one of his posts (at Part 24) to take as my example; and that is Matthew 27:3, "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders". Jesse's focus was on the word 'repent'.
I thought to myself when I read the verse for myself, 'what goes through my mind (my understanding) when I read that verse; if Judas' did repent for his horrible behavior, which he cannot undo, did his repentance manage to secure salvation before he suicided?' Or, maybe God didn't accept his repentance & condemned him to hell anyway, which then causes one to wonder whether God doesn't always accept our repentance. Compare Judas' with the thief on the Cross; why was the thief forgiven & not Judas? When I read this verse (prior to Jesse's explanation), I would always wonder about Judas' eternal state. And so I bring up this verse to you (as I did to myself); how do you normally read & understand it: 'was Judas' repentance unto salvation or not'? If not 'unto salvation', then what does repentance actually mean to us when we read it in the Bible or even apply it to our own lives?
Given the word usage in Greek for 'repentance' (METANOEO or METAMELOMAI) that Jesse shared, (& his explanation I won't duplicate here), my understanding of this verse was now made very much clearer than when reading it in English. And I'm sure you would have noted this as well, for the English word 'repentance' doesn't correctly explain Judas' response to his evil act. So, were the KJB translators wrong in using 'repentance'? Onto Page 2.
No, that's the only word we have in English (unless notes are added to explain further). Every time you & I read this verse, we might be left wondering about Judas' repentance. But now with clarity from the Greek, we can read that verse with greater understanding & certainty of Judas' heart response to his evil act: that it wasn't a repentance as we would normally understand the word, but he was simply a sorry, ashamed man for doing what he did to the pure & holy Son of God & this type of response could never secure him, or us, salvation.
What then does such an example, as I've given here, do to our reading of the KJB? The inspiration of the KJB is certainly clear, but to our understanding from the translation work, it gives the very real possibility of misunderstanding & leading us to believe/accept something not intended by the inspired writer (in this case, Matthew). This is not the fault of the translators, but the fault of any translation work from one language to another. Is there a solution, except for the obvious that we all learn to read Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek? Since that is not possible nor expected, brother Jesse has gone to great lengths to at least give us a few Scriptures that can be misinterpreted or misunderstood & has brought us clarification. At least on a personal level, this work of his must be greatly appreciated, which in turn helps us to read the KJB more correctly & I hope as the KJB translators would have hoped that we also do, since they weren't allowed to expand their translation with explanatory notes. Hence, some 'modern' translations try to overcome the old English & other limitations, but unfortunately, the addition or omission of certain verses/passages make their usefulness untenable (to me at least), so I stick with the KJB. Blessings.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?