Brother it is not necessary to leave. I will let this discussion continue as long as it does not become a personal thing but an exchange of ideas.

Your sarcasm about the Webster's Dictionary was taken with a laugh. Of course the author of those verses did not use Webster's definition. Noah Webster came along much later in life. However you must understand that the standardization of the English language did not really start taking place until about 1769. Webster produced the first dictionary of the American language. His definitions are the closet in existence to the English of the Bible. It is a great tool to use to look up words without having to consult Hebrew or Greek lexicons. This dictionary is widely used in fundamentalist circles when studying the Bible.

In Christ,
George

GreekTim, I guess we need a KJBO/nonKJB lexicon.

Let me give it a try:
To me, a Hebrew dictionary and a Hebrew lexicon do the same thing. They tell what the word means. If I am wrong, my ignorance (and lack of use) has been exposed.

Yes, the argument is that using a Hebrew reference to find the meaning of a Hebrew name does not constitute a contradiction in my KJB stance. Being required to know Hebrew so that the KJB can be fully explained is a contradiction and so I do not support that requirement.

Rerun on 4 points: (not reprinted for brevity's sake)

#1 - Still speculation. Did each church (sometimes little more than one or a few families) have their token Jew? Did they each have a HOT from which to compare? And here I thought that Paul was the missionary to the Gentiles. Oh, I just thought of something. Do we use a Hebrew reference or a Greek reference when finding the hidden meaning of the NT Jews named by Paul? Anyway, "Jewish influence" does not constitute availability. In a number of Biblically documented cases, they were enemies.

#2 - They had access if they were able to dodge the stones being thrown at them while they meekly questioned the local rabbi or enter the local synagogue. (see #1 end)

#3 - okay, so I have to quote you here,

Exactly where is one supposed to find these other places? Are you implying that the meanings can be derived from the text itself? Having the LXX show the names is no different than the KJB, is it? The LXX gives no advantage for the Hebrew over the KJB.

#4 - Your argument is that the Greeks could understand the meanings of the Hebrew names without the need of an external reference because "certain words" are similar between languages. There are not enough names that fit this condition to be viable as an argument that the Greeks could know the meanings without help. This is an exception to the norm and should not be used as a justification. What % of the genealogy of I Chron 1-9 are matched to Greek names? Uh, oh! Have I missed some life-changing truth by not checking out all those names for their meanings? The lists are important, but are the meanings necessary?

more to come ....

A quick statement. Not only do I think that Ps 12 refers to the KJB. Actually in TWO pairs of 7's. 7th major English translation plus the PCE is the 7th major edition of the KJB), I think that I Cor 13 does also! "when that which is perfect is come" I told you that I am a wacko!

Ah, I forgot about 1 Cor 13 Brother Tim!

In Christ,
George

2 quick things before I go to bed:
1) Referring to post #185 &186 - I would like to ask you why you would ever consult a Hebrew reference if all you need is the KJV? Also, it stills seems to be a contradiction for you to say that you don't have to learn the language but you still use a Hebrew reference of someone who did learn Hebrew (yet you would tell that person he/she doesn't need to learn the language). IT seems like someone has to learn the language.

2) I am flabbergasted by the interpretation made to Psalm 12 and 1 Cor. 13. Seriously, I do not even have the words right now to express how stronly I disagree with such interpretations that were made there. Don't take that as a personal attack or anything like that. I just think you are badly wrong, and you are twisting Scripture to fit your own doctrine. I definitely do not see the KJV interpretation rising from the text in Psalm 12 or 1 Cor. 13. But to each his own I guess. Good night all.

GreekTim, where have I said that no one should learn these languages. The debate started way back when you said that everybody should take Greek classes. I hunted for the exact post #, but the search function is weak and I gave up. Hopefully, you remember the "30 min a day, one night a week, good teacher, etc" discussion.

There is a difference in the idea of "necessary" and "interesting additional information". In my experience, no doctrine has been lost by the absence of the knowledge of the original languages, nor has any doctrine been enhanced solely by that knowledge.

Curious question I meant to ask last night:

GreekTim said earlier (#181):

What defines "smart"? college degree? multi-lingual skills? high SAT score? The Pharisees were a smart bunch, intellectually-speaking, the best that I can tell. I guess Peter, James, and John could not be counted since "they were unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13).

Greektim, I am going to give you a link to a place where you can purchase a copy of "Purified Seven Times."

http://www.thinkbible.org/book/0015.php

If you can develop an open mind and enter into this in the spirit of learning I believe you will find this book extremely interesting and edifying. It is very inexpensive costing only $7.68.

In Christ,
George

About the interpretation of Ps 12 and I Cor 13:

I'm not alone here, we are everywhere!

Wow, talk about pulling verses kicking and screaming from their context. I'll stop there.

Brother Nate, this is not "pulling out verses" in any way. This is something that has been widely accepted in fundamentalist circles for a long, long time. As Brother Tim says, "We are everywhere."

Have you ever read Purified Seven Times? If not you might want to pick up a copy for yourself. It may open your eyes.

In Christ,
George

In Christ,
George

I find it intersting that though you reject intelectualism and scholarism (at least that which contradicts your view) you ask us to read someone elses work. Money is tight right now so I can't just go out and buy that book (even if it cost $10-$15 after s/h). So instead, I would prefer it if we could start a new thread on the 12th Psalm and you guys present your case based on your knowledge of the text.

PS - I am always accepting donations if someone wants to buy that book for me . I would love to read it and do a book review of it on my blog. I am not close to a theological library so I can't even check it out. But I promise I will read it with as open mind as I can if I can get my hands on it.

Brother George, I understand the KJV only view has been widely accepted in fundamentalist churches for some time. The KJV is the version I have used for memorization since my childhood, so it holds a special place in my heart, but not to the point of excluding other versions. I have never been one to suspend my questions in favor of accepted views. I enjoy testing my beliefs against Scripture to ensure they're correct. This is not to say that fundamentalism has not done so, in fact I am certain it has ... I simply disagree with their conclusions on this matter.

When I followed Christ in water baptism at the age of 14, my father gave me an NIV Study Bible as a gift. It was my first study Bible and I cherish the truth that the Lord brought to my heart through the reading of His Word. When I graduated from high school, our Christian school gave a Bible to graduates, so I asked for a Ryrie NASB to take to college. Though I read other versions besides the KJV, you’ll still find my doctrinal views to be quite similar to most “fundamentalists”. The Lord has used passages from each one of the versions above to move my heart in my walk with Him, which is why I disagree that the KJV has the corner to itself regarding truth and sound doctrine.

My grandfather, who was the most Godly man I have ever known, read from the NIV because, as he described, he could read it easier than the KJV. He assisted a missionary team in Papua New Guinea for a time and, though he was no scholar, his walk with the Lord is an incredible legacy for me. If the Lord used the NIV version to guide my grandfather through his days on earth, it's good enough for me, too.

I have spoken to countless foreign missionaries about their ministries to a variety of languages and cultures. If the KJV is the perfection spoken of in Psalms and 1 Corinthians, what of other languages? Are the tribesman of New Guinea and Sudan who accept Christ required to learn English in order to read the "perfect" version? Surely this is not the case. I cannot justify such a position from my reading of Scripture.

This post was last modified: Tue Apr 22, 2008 04:27 PM by Nate.

Praise the Lord! Bless God! Amen and Amen!

That is, in my opinion, the best English Bible out there. Can I get a witness??? (I doubt it )

My Ryrie NASB is now an official Ryrie study Bible... I got Dr. Ryrie to sign it for me a week ago.