Large Block Capital Letters in KJV

[Bro. West]

I wrote a piece on this subject at hand about ten years ago, which still can be found on line. I know how it ties in with BRANCH and the four gospel (inscriptions on the cross, Jesus name at birth and elsewhere)  and how these show up in other places. This writing on LBCS It was lengthy but I am sure I overlooked something. There are those that teach that there are no valid reasons, but as a Bible Believer I know better 

[BrotherTony]

42 minutes ago, Bro. West said:

I wrote a piece on this subject at hand about ten years ago, which still can be found on line. I know how it ties in with BRANCH and the four gospel (inscriptions on the cross, Jesus name at birth and elsewhere)  and how these show up in other places. This writing on LBCS It was lengthy but I am sure I overlooked something. There are those that teach that there are no valid reasons, but as a Bible Believer I know better 

Would you care to post a link and be a little more clear about what you're trying to convey? Some of us aren't clairvoyant. 

[Bro. West]

www KJV1611.org.uk I did not know it was there. I simplify did a google search and typed in Large Block Capital Letters KJV. I down loaded and need to maybe polish it us.

[BrotherTony]

3 hours ago, Bro. West said:

www KJV1611.org.uk I did not know it was there. I simplify did a google search and typed in Large Block Capital Letters KJV. I down loaded and need to maybe polish it us.

My searches didn't come up with that at all...just references to sites to buy Bibles. I tried several different search engines. More specific DIRECT link, please. I went to the KJV1611.org.uk site and I didn't find anything about it there. 

[Jerry]

You are not very clear in your posts. What are you asking or looking for? Reasons why certain text was capitalized? They are usually names of Christ, or signs. Like you mentioned, the Branch, Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews.

Zechariah 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

Zechariah 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Jesus' name in Revelation 19:

Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

In Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Obviously LORD with all caps, but also some other compound names of God:

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Isaiah 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Acts 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Revelation 18 also has capitals to refer to Babylon:

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

These are the ones that come to my mind right now. There might be a few more. If that wasn't quite what you were looking for, no problem.

[Bro. West]

https://www.kjv1611.org.uk/ has my works from years ago. I want to review it and correct anything I missed or may have been at error  But I will post it here anyway it is long.

 

 

 

 LARGE BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS ON THE CROSS

Above the head of our Saviour an inscription was placed. Have you ever wondered about these Large Block Capital Letters (LBC).

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.(Matthew 27:37)

And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Mark 15:26)

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.(Luke 23:38)

And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19:19)

  You will notice that the entire inscription given is different in each account of the four Gospels. Therefore there are only three explanations.

1.The accounts are spurious and there are contradictions in the Bible.

2.Each author only quoted part of the entire inscription as the Holy Spirit led them of the three languages given.

3.There were four different inscriptions

 The only possible explanation is number two because the Scriptures read inscription not inscriptions and it was written in three different languages.

Nevertheless, many translations do not use the LBC of our Bible and many believe there is no authority for them doing so (Bullinger’s Companion Bible Appendix number 48).

It matters not what these authorities state or translations do, the Holy Spirit has over time guarded and directed the use of LBC’s, commas, semicolons, verse and chapter numbering and the like as he saw fit.

 These Large Block Capital letters (LBC) on the cross signal is a start of a new dispensation, The CHURCH AGE.

Just as in his birth when God took on flesh the LBC’S are there.

Four times the name Jesus is printed outside of the inscription on the cross in the Gospels in LBC (Matt1: 21,25 and Luke 1:31; 2:21). These LBC’s signal that the new wine has arrived and will be poured into a new bottle (New Testament) and not old bottles (Old Testament.

(Mat 9:17)  Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

In the Old Testament God called out a nation with LBC letters.

Exo 6:3  And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Psa 83:18  That [men] may know that thou, whose name alone [is] JEHOVAH, [art] the most high over all the earth.

Isa 26:4  Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH [is] everlasting strength:

Isa 12:2  Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation. 

The salvation of the nation of Israel was JEHOVAH.

In the New Testament God calls out the Church with the name JESUS. The salvation of all men now is Jesus.

We Christians do not call upon the name JEHOVAH for salvation and drink from the OLD WINE under the LAW.

We call upon the name of Jesus, which appears in LBC letters also, this is the New Wine and many heresies in doctrine come from sipping from the Old Wine under the Law. 

Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Let us see four times the name JEHOVAH appears in LBC’s and Four times the name JESUS appears in LBC’s 

Yes, we know that JAH also appears in LBC’s, but here it says to sing praise to his name, which one is JEHOVAH or JESUS (I do not know about you but I am enjoying this). Perhaps, JAH stands for J=Jesus, A= the Almighty and H= the Holy Spirit-----I know I am nuts and guilty of bibliolatry.

Yet, I would rather be a squirrel for the Lord than a snake for the devil.

You see both the Father and the Son deserve special billing! But then the Father and the Son are one.

How can you explain this eternal being the only answer that can be given is with LBC letters I AM THAT I AM. 

Paul manifests that the starting point of the first LBC is believing that the I Am exists----this is called faith, without this all else is futile. Everything else rests on this mandatory requirement!

Heb 11:6  But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Many of the LBC’S and the inscriptions at Calvary point us to the fact that he is the BRANCH. 

Before we go to the Gospels and the advance revelations that only the King James Bible can establish.

Do you promise not to tell anyone, but I have often kissed my Bible.

If you have not perhaps you have a “holey liable” and not The HOLY BIBLE

There is a Book with pages worn that the faithful read and the critics scorn

The Inscription on the cross!

The Gospel of Matthew

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Matthew 27:37

Man calls this an accusation, God calls it his position in LBC’S letters

Jer 23:5  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.

The only time the word branch is capitalized is when referring to our LORD.

Notice how this points to Jesus being the King of the Jews with another LBC’S—if the LORD says he is the Branch the King it is not an accusation. Man’s rejection and in this dispensation the rejection of the natural branch (Romans 11) of their King has graffed in a wild branch (ME AND YOU)!

If Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as the King, it is only fitting that a perfect King should have his birth announced in LBC letters.

Mat 1:21  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Mat 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(Matt 1: 21,25). The genealogy in Matthew opens with this Branch being from David the king. Mat 1:1  The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

David had many sons that became king, but none could ever be the perfect King except the one in LBC letters JESUS (The Branch the King). For this is the KING that even king David will bow to and worship. Mat 22:44  The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

 The sad note is when the nation of Israel rejected the Branch the King (The King of the Jews) and stated John 19:15  But they cried out, Away with [him], away with [him], crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Their own branch suffered.

Rom 11:16-21 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is]also [holy]: and if the root [be]holy, so [are]the branches.(17)  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;  (18)  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.  (19)  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.(20)  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:  (21) For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed]lest he also spare not thee.

The Gospel of Mark

Mar 15:26  And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

The inscription given in Mark is the shortest (LBC) of what was on the cross. If Mark portrays our Lord as a servant this would match another LBC in the Old Testament.

Zec 3:8  Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

The Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus as a servant therefore who cares about his genealogy no LBC regarding his birth is necessary and his inscription on the cross is the shortest of all. The less said about a servant the better.

   Phi 2:7  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

While our Lord is the King of all Kings, he is also the servant of all servants and when Zechariah writes of this BRANCH he uses the LBC letters.

The Gospel of Luke

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If the Gospel of Luke portrays our Lord Jesus as a man, which it does then this brings us to another LBC speaking of him as such.

Zec 6:12  And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

(Sides note three times the phrase Behold the man appears in Holy Writ and each time it has to do with a King.)

Luke’s Gospel to announce the birth of the perfect man (Luke 1: 31; 2:21) with LBC’S. Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

While a converted Jew can point to the genealogy in Matthew that speaks of David the king, what are we to point to as being saved Gentiles?

 Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH genealogy given in Luke goes back to Adam the son of God.

YES, I know that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal. 3:28). The Jew can look at his family tree and in spite of all the withered and broken off branches (Romans 11) he has a perfect BRANCH he can claim… Jer. 23:5.

(The genealogy in Matthew points to this BRANCH and in LBC letters it is displayed both in the Old and New Testament).

But what of us wild branches whom by the grace and severity of God have been grafted in, do we not have a BRANCH on the family tree we can claim?

For most of the branches on the Gentile family tree have been blinded by the abominable branch (Isa. 14:19) 

YES, we do “Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH” can be traced back to Adam. And in LARGE BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS (LBC) it was displayed in three diver languages for

All the sons of Adam.

This Son of man, second Adam and this man the Branch is not only the God and Saviour of the Jew but the Gentile as well.

Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. Rom 3:29 [Is he] the God of the Jews only? [is he] not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

Excuse me for a moment as try to recover from joyful chills—---

Well Glory. Thank you for your patience. I am better now.

The Gospel of John

John 19:19  And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

Yes, Nathanael and the good thing is a holy thing—Brother.

Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Gospel of John has no genealogy for The Son has no beginning.

John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

The beginning of eternity, how could God explain this to our finite minds? By simply saying in the BEGINNING!

The first time God tries to explain this to man it appears with LBC letters. Exo 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

(THREE I AM’S=TRINITY)

Pro 30:4  Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?

WE KNOW THE SON’S NAME IT APPEARS IN LARGE BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS!! JESUS

You see even though Jesus is the perfect King, the perfect Servant and the perfect Man that would not have redeemed us. Because of our wickedness and his love, it took the Lord himself to be our righteousness and the LBC letters loudly proclaim what Paul did writing the book of Romans

(THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS). 

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this [is] his name whereby he shall be called,

 THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. (Jer 23:6)

Rom 3:25  Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 5:11  And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Seeing no man is good or righteous in himself it took the righteousness of God in the flesh to purchase our salvation.

Mar 10:18  And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

Act 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

There is much more that could be said about the rest of the LBC letters

But this should be enough for now to wet your appetite.

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

21 hours ago, Bro. West said:

Before we go to the Gospels and the advance revelations that only the King James Bible can establish. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

The emboldened portion of the quotation above is a foundational false doctrine that I view as a separational offence.  

God the Holy Spirit did NOT directly inspire (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) the translators of the King James translation and did NOT provide "advance revelations" through the King James translation.  Even so, the King James translation does NOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit DID directly inspire for all mankind and that God has promised to preserve forever.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Hugh_Flower]

28 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The emboldened portion of the quotation above is a foundational false doctrine that I view as a separational offence.  

God the Holy Spirit did NOT directly inspire (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) the translators of the King James translation and did NOT provide "advance revelations" through the King James translation.  Even so, the King James translation does NOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that God the Holy Spirit DID directly inspire for all mankind and that God has promised to preserve forever.

So what Greek and Hebrew? Which Hebrew and Greek do you choose from, and why? - ( doesn’t this come then down to personal opinion and private interpretation) 

Your on the line of denying that we have the Inspired Word in english (I am not saying it is Inspired into English, there is a difference!) ; The Texts where already inspired, translation does not take away the inspiration

[Jerry]

15 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

The Texts where already inspired, translation does not take away the inspiration

That I agree with. The Holy Spirit definitely guided the KJV translators to translate exactly as He wanted them to.

That being said, I 100% am against the idea that there is somehow advanced revelation in the KJV that the underlying texts do not have. I am KJV only because it is exactly the same (in English) as the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts.

And for those who try to confuse the issue by saying which texts. The preserved Greek and Hebrew texts are not a great conglomeration of scrolls like the Critical Text. There is only one main Hebrew Text (ie. I think it is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text - I might have the exact name or the spelling wrong), and there are several preserved Greek texts, with very minimal differences between them (and I personally do not know what these supposed differences are). I use Scrivener's, which is a reconstructed text giving the exact readings we have in the KJV. There is also Stephanus' 1550 Greek TR, but no one has ever shown me any readings that contradict my KJV.

I have a serious problem with this above study. Bro West seems to have a VERY BAD habit of winging it and making up his own theology or views that he expects other people to accept without any Scripture to back it up. Making some theology or grand points because of some of the capitalized text in the Bible is foolish. They are signs or names. AND, if God was really trying to emphasize something specifically because these words were capitalized, they would take into account ALL capitalized names/titles in the whole Word of God, not just some. I have listed others above that he has not even included or commented upon.

Yes, most of these are names of God/Christ, as each context shows - and it is important or significant in each passage, just like Revelation 17 shows the importance of knowing and identifying MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. However, I do not make some conclusion based on picking and choosing which ones fit my theory OR think that they teach some kind of advanced revelation.

Bro West, you missed the boat, fell overboard, and are being carried headlong over Heresy Falls. Better cling to the Book, the Word of God and learn what Exegesis is (ie. bringing out of the Bible what is already in there), and stop trying to apply Eisegesis (ie. putting into the Bible what you want).

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

So what Greek and Hebrew? Which Hebrew and Greek do you choose from, and why? - ( doesn’t this come then down to personal opinion and private interpretation) 

The Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Greek.

No, this comes down to a correct understanding of Biblical doctrine concerning Holy Spirit inspiration and the promise of divine preservation.

However, to consider your parenthetical question - (Doesn't this come then down to personal opinion and private interpretation) - from the perspective in which you intended it, I would ask a set of return questions -- Which edition of the King James translation have you chosen as your final authority, of which there are five (for as some have said elsewhere in this forum concerning this subject, things that are different are not the same); and then would not your making such a choice equally come down to "personal opinion and private interpretation"?

Furthermore, the King James translation is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.  So, from which Hebrew and Greek did the King James translators choose; and why?  Would this then come down to the "personal opinion and private interpretation" of the King James translators?  In fact, by claiming the King James translation as your FINAL authority, even above the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, you would actually be making the King James translators to be your final authority.
 

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

Your on the line of denying that we have the Inspired Word in english (I am not saying it is Inspired into English, there is a difference!) ; The Texts where already inspired, translation does not take away the inspiration

No, I am quite comfortable holding that the King James translation carries inspirational authority for English speaking peoples (and I will NOT use ANY other translation).  However, I will NOT concede in any fashion that the King James English translation is "advanced revelation" from God the Holy Spirit.  It is a TRANSLATION from the Hebrew and Greek, which the Lord our God providentially provided for English speaking peoples.

Indeed, I agree that the original penmen of the Hebrew and Greek were directly inspired (as per 2 Peter 1:20-21) by God the Holy Spirit.  Furthermore, I would agree that the Lord our God promised to preserve those original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures/Writings (not the original manuscripts, but the original writings from those original manuscripts) in a "jot and tittle" manner unto EVERY generation of His own people.  Thus I would hold that unto 1611 and even unto this very day the original writings of Hebrew and Greek from the original manuscripts (although NOT the original manuscripts themselves) STILL exist among the Hebrew and Greek manuscript copies that have been passed down from generation to generation.  (NOTE: I DO acknowledge and contend heartily that our adversary the devil has also been busy throughout that time developing corrupted and false "scriptures" by which to deceive from the truth of God.)  Due to the precision of the Hebrew scribes and Masoretes, I would hold to the Masoretic textual family (not altered by the Septuagint) for the Old Testament Scriptures.  Due to the proliferation of the Greek New Testament manuscripts for the Received textual family from generation to generation of this New Testament church age, I would hold to the Received textual family for the New Testament Scriptures.  (In fact, this is the same position that the King James translators took for the Hebrew and Greek texts from which they translated the King James translation.)

Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were already inspired.  Yes, the Hebrew and Greek texts were divinely preserved (and remain so unto this very day).  Yes, translation does not take away the authority of divine inspiration, that is -- to the extent that the translation remains accurate to the originally inspired and divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek.  Even so, I am very, VERY confident in the accuracy and authority of the King James translation.  Yet I recognize that it still is a TRANSLATION.  As such, it CANNOT supersede or disannul the Hebrew and Greek from which it was translated - UNLESS it actually is "advanced revelation" by the additional direct inspiration of God the Holy Spirit upon the King James translators.  However, I am compelled to deny any such doctrinal position because the Holy Scriptures NEVER promote, prophesy, promise, or proclaim any such teaching concerning the King James translation itself.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Hugh_Flower]

These questions that I have are questions not targeted towards you in a particular sense, I do want that to be understood. These are questions that are summoned when I go through the thought process of this sort of conversations, even for myself to know and answer. 
 

For me, I cannot put the Greek or Hebrew texts that we currently have above our KJV for simple reasons.

 

- It creates a scholarly barrier ( Priest class in my eyes ), that leads to a philosophical mind set, IE Calvinism . I do under stand the phrase, tossing the baby out with the bath water ( baptistery water for our dear beloved Calvinists ) But I don’t think that’s an argument here.  I think it can be contended upon in other manners - study to show your self approved, and etc. 

I would contest that point with the English is perfect, and suitable to “study your self approved” into the fullest extent of our Lords will. ( who that may be, I digress)

For an English speaker, I’d say they would always get more out of the KJV than the Hebrew or Greek. And on that Note, I’d say they’d even get more out of the Geneva than the Greek or the Hebrew. 

 

[Jerry]

I put my KJV on a higher level as the underlying preserved Hebrew and Greek texts, because I am an English-speaking Christian, and I believe that is God's Word for the end of this age. I do not slight or disregard the underlying texts, as it was those that led me to my English KJV - HOWEVER, I believe my KJV 100% conforms to the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts. If it was ever shown to me that an edition/version of those preserved texts differed from the English of my KJV, I would discard that reading in a heartbeat.

My KJV is my final authority. I use the Greek and Hebrew study tools (and even, English tools like Webster's 1828 Dictionary) to help me understand my KJV better, NEVER EVER to correct my KJV. I believe God guided the 54 KJV translators (47 of which were involved in the whole process) to bring across exactly what He wanted to convey to us in English. I am a man 400+ years removed from the translation of the KJV, I do not have any sort of proficiency in multiple languages - let alone the Biblical languages (beyond a knack for word studies and love of learning Greek words); therefore WHO AM I to think I can do better work translating my Bible than those other men did - AND I have never found a problem with what they have translated in my over 24 years of studying my King James Bible; therefore why should I correct it. I find that anyone that does so in our day - whether it be MacArthur, Wiersbe, Ironside, Torrey, J. Vernon McGee - ANYONE who corrects the Bible for any reason makes themselves their final authority and exalts their opinion or preference for that passage above the Word of God - and usually, often the points they are making when they correct the wording of a passage is usually off too, when compared with the whole of Scripture.

Either they like their wording better (I say this in love to God and His Word, and truly love to my fellow believer whom I want to cling to God's Word with their whole heart: who cares about your personal preferences, deal with how God Himself worded it - SUBMIT YOURSELF TO HIS AUTHORITY, NOT YOUR OWN) OR think that the Bible is in error in that part unless they correct it - and like I said, I have done enough studying to believe that ALL Bible correctors are wrong inasmuch as they differ from God's Word. Sometimes I actually have to laugh at MacArthur, etc. when they correct a passage to prove a point, then teach what they want it to say - and I find that it contradicts some other passage that they simply overlooked along the way. I have NEVER EVER found a supposed correction of a Bible passage to be right - and that is not willful blindness. I have spent countless hours studying out and reconciling supposed "Bible errors", and found NOT ONE of them true.

Some "errors" just need further studying of the whole Bible to piece together correctly, and frankly some others are simply because they are using a corrupt text or Bible version - and the errors that are in that version or text are not actually in the King James Bible or the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts. (And for the record, not understanding a passage is not the same as finding a Bible error. Perhaps that person may need to grow in their walk with the Lord and their understanding of His Word, then later all those passages will suddenly fit together as God gives them the wisdom and spiritual maturity they needed to understand it and reconcile it with the rest of His Word.)

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

These questions that I have are questions not targeted towards you in a particular sense, I do want that to be understood. These are questions that are summoned when I go through the thought process of this sort of conversations, even for myself to know and answer. 

Brother Hugh,

I thank you for expressing this, and I may need to express an apology to you.  When I first began my posting above, and throughout the majority of my typing thereof, I misunderstood and thought that I was responding to a post from Brother West.  It was not until I was at the end of typing out my response that I realized my mistake, that I was responding, not to a post from Brother West, but to a post from you.  Thus my response may have been a little more forceful toward you than it needed to be.  Even so, I do NOT withdraw or apologize for the position that I presented in my above posting; but I do apologize if I came across too forcefully in my presentation thereof.
 

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

For me, I cannot put the Greek or Hebrew texts that we currently have above our KJV for simple reasons.

- It creates a scholarly barrier ( Priest class in my eyes ), that leads to a philosophical mind set, IE Calvinism . I do under stand the phrase, tossing the baby out with the bath water ( baptistery water for our dear beloved Calvinists ) But I don’t think that’s an argument here.  I think it can be contended upon in other manners - study to show your self approved, and etc. 

Being an English reader myself, who is VERY particular about English grammar in my studies of Scripture, I can certainly appreciate your concern in this matter.  I would NOT teach that a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is necessary to be a godly student of God's truth.  Indeed, I WOULD teach that an English student of God's Holy Word can be completely confident to know the wisdom and will of God through a diligent study of the King James translation.

However, the doctrine of God's Holy Word (in particular the doctrine of divine inspiration and the doctrine of divine preservation) compels me to acknowledge that the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek IS God's very Word for ALL of mankind and must be the ULTIMATE foundation for ALL translational work into ANY language of mankind.  The Lord our God by His Holy Spirit did not GIVE His Word to mankind in English.  Rather, He gave His Word to mankind in Hebrew and Greek.  I myself trust the infinite wisdom of the Lord my God to do so in this fashion.  Nor did the Lord our God promise to preserve His Holy Word in English.  Rather, He promised to preserve every "jot and tittle" of His Holy Word as originally given in Hebrew and Greek.  I myself trust the almighty power of the Lord my God to do just as He promised.  Even so, upon this foundation the Lord my God has also providentially provided a wonderful and accurate TRANSLATION of His Holy Word from the inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek in the King James translation (even as He has providentially provided similar translations in various other languages of the world).  For English readers I would hold forth the King James translation with complete confidence as the authoritative Word of God in English.

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I would contest that point with the English is perfect, and suitable to “study your self approved” into the fullest extent of our Lords will. ( who that may be, I digress)

Indeed.  For English readers - the King James translation can be taken with complete confidence to study it diligently, to learn it whole heartedly, to meditate on it consistently, to live by it submissively, and to teach it confidently.

1 hour ago, Hugh_Flower said:

For an English speaker, I’d say they would always get more out of the KJV than the Hebrew or Greek. And on that Note, I’d say they’d even get more out of the Geneva than the Greek or the Hebrew. 

Indeed, to the extent that an individual understands more of English grammar than of Hebrew or Greek grammar, that individual will likely glean more from the King James English translation than from the Hebrew and Greek.  However, to the extent that the Lord our God allows an individual to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, to that extent a study of God's very Word in Hebrew and Greek can be useful for that individual to learn and grow.  Necessary - not at all; useful - indeed.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle
grammar

[Hugh_Flower]

A hearty amen brothers. Now to unfortunately stir the Pot - I do believe the KJV points to further doctrinal ideas than previously “known” - I need to be careful about what I do mean here. 
 

In regards to Revelation and the City on 7 mountains - I believe it is evident and clear that this in a literal interpretation defines the Rome of today, yesterday and tomorrow.  This being the Worlds Great Whore, Babylon. 

I do not believe it is necessary to go to the Greek to find this ( nor have I ). And like above, if I go to the Greek or Hebrew I believe this would be in fact “correcting” if it gave me a different opinion ( perhaps up to the Greek translation )

This may be an error of mine, but this is the area of error I see between some of us brothers in full doctrinal statements ( teachings and church corrections ) this particular area, the great whore is just the topical part of this conversation, the true area lies in this area of interpretation.

 

thanks Hugh

 

[Jerry]

Be careful you do not add to the Word of God. God finished giving us Biblical revelation 1900+ years ago.

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Anything we get from studying out the English in context was ALREADY in the underlying Hebrew and Greek. If you add to that, you are deceived and in trouble with God.

I am pretty sure the Greek Textus Receptus says the EXACT SAME THINGS the English does in Revelation about Mystery Babylon. It is up to modern Christians to read, study, and receive what God has already said. If some professing Christian refuses to believe that Revelation 17-18 describes Papal Rome, the city on Seven Hills, that is a problem with them, not with the Greek Textus Receptus.

Again, I stand with most on these boards, we use the preserved Hebrew and Greek as tools to help us better understand the English of our KJV, not to correct it or get different doctrine or different understanding than what the English says (yes, Greek and Hebrew word studies help shed light on the English, just like Webster's 1828 Dictionary does - if it gives a different meaning, then most here would reject that meaning. Though understanding the range of meaning of a word is not necessarily correcting the Bible, as long as we see how a particular meaning does or does not fit in a particular passage).