Large Block Capital Letters in KJV

[Jerry]

And, no one is saying that we HAVE to go to the underlying Hebrew and Greek - however, the English language has changed in the last 400+ years, and words have changed meanings or modified their range of meanings. Strong's Concordance helps open us the definitions of the words used in each passage - as does a solid dictionary like Webster's 1828 Dictionary. For those who wing it and think they understand everything without lexicons and dictionaries, I am not surprised when they get some wacky ideas because they don't know what a word means OR they think a word means a certain thing in the Bible because they use a modern definition of the word that has no relevance to its Biblical usage.

For example: The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not WANT. Oh look, a true Christian is not supposed to have any WANTS/DESIRES. That is not what it means. Want means to be in need. When the Lord is your Shepherd and you are walking in obedience to Him, you will not be in need or be in want because He supplies all your needs, as Matthew 6:33 teaches us.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jerry

[Pastor Scott Markle]

25 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

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. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

If what you mean by that which I have emboldened in your quotation above is that the King James translation somehow provides an "added revelation" of "new doctrine" that was not previously in the divinely inspired and preserved Hebrew and Greek - then I am compelled to express an emphatic disagreement.

I would stand in agreement rather with that which Brother Jerry presented:

6 minutes ago, Jerry said:

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.

To consider your example:

28 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

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 appears to be a reference unto Revelation 17:9-10.  Being able myself to look up and read the Greek of Revelation 17:9-10, I would present that the Greek reads just as the English in these verses.  The Greek reads just as the English that the seven heads of the beast upon which the whore rides are seven mountains.  The Greek reads just as the English that the woman/whore sits upon these seven mountains.  The Greek reads just as the English that there are seven kings, that five of those kings have fallen, that one of those kings is, and that the seventh king is not yet come.  The Greek reads just as the English that the final king, when he comes, will continue for a short space of time.  There is nothing different between the Greek and the English; there is no added revelation or doctrine in the English.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 minutes ago, Jerry said:

And, no one is saying that we HAVE to go to the underlying Hebrew and Greek - however, the English language has changed in the last 400+ years, and words have changed meanings or modified their range of meanings. Strong's Concordance helps open us the definitions of the words used in each passage - as does a solid dictionary like Webster's 1828 Dictionary. For those who wing it and think they understand everything without lexicons and dictionaries, I am not surprised when they get some wacky ideas because they don't know what a word means OR they think a word means a certain thing in the Bible because they use a modern definition of the word that has no relevance to its Biblical usage.

Agreed.  And such diligent study not only is necessary for the definition of words, but also for the grammatical usage of words and phrases.  Mishandling a passage because of a misunderstanding of grammar is sadly too common - and by this I am talking about a misunderstanding of ENGLISH grammar (not to mention how many go to the Hebrew and/or Greek without really understanding Hebrew and/or Greek grammar).  Words not only have definitions, but also have grammatical usage.  What they mean is significant, but how they are used in a sentence or context is equally significant.

[Bro. West]

Glad to see a reaction on LBC. The original post was given and with a pretext of that I wanted to polish it and check for errors. I wrote this over 12 years ago. One of the ways I check myself and doctrine is to give it out, usually private to men who have read the Book over and over again. A friend of mine a pastor and fellow street preaching friend hath read it over a 100 times. I will ask him see if you can shoot it full of holes. (This one of my reasons for Christian fellowship)

I believe that is a good thing for if you come in with a preconceived idea you will usually leave with the same. I try hard not to do this for it is human nature. Yes, I pray over the things I write and contrary to what was said I do not believe the KJV is a reliable translation. It is an infallible translation. It is similar to Acts 1:3. To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: Act 1:3

The newer libels say convincing proofs or many. There is a big difference. I can convince someone into falsehood, but if it is infallible it is infallible. The main theme of the work was the BRANCH and Jesus Christ in a Sunday school lesson years ago and not in exhaustive work. If it would have been the whore would have been mentioned. And yes, there is advance light in the Scripture, if not we would probably all be A-millennial. NO ONE is a Bible scholar for a scholar is one who has master his subject.

C. Larkin stated in his work in 1918 that Israel would be restored, he was laughed at by all the “scholars”. After 1948 they no longer laugh.

Bullinger the “scholar” stated that the LBC could not be justified. I will close with what I put on all devotionals

 

The author of this work believes without reservation that the King James Bible is more than just a priceless work of literary art, which it is. But it has indeed been preserved without error by God's providence as an infallible book that the common man in the English speaking world can hold and own, and the light it can give rests entirely on that man's faith in it and its Author. And all those who believe otherwise have either been duped, have an unclean motive, are just ignorant or see no issue of importance in having God's word readily available in an infallible form. No amount of linguist ability can give any extra light if there is doubt to its content, the Holy Spirit will not honour anyone that wants to subject this English Bible to an inferior position.

Thank you Bro. West

 

 

[Jerry]

I am sorry, but as another brother stated above, I will not fellowship with you if you believe you can find advanced revelation in your Bible. As I already quoted from God's Word:

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.

Whatever you get out of your King James Bible from studying everything in its proper context and from using sound Bible study tools was already in it, was already in the underlying preserved Hebrew and Greek texts. God is not adding to His Word today. The canon of His Word is complete - that is what He Himself said in Revelation 22. If you add to His Book, take away from it, or mess with it, God will mess with you by giving you consequences you will not like, some of which are eternal.

And I do not see how someone's Amillenial view (which no true Bible believer should have today) is relevant to this subject, and do not see how the proper Millenial view is some kind of advanced revelation. The Bible reveals PROGRESSIVE revelation, and that means as time went on, God gave more Scripture and therefore more light on things He has said in the past - but again, His Book was closed and finished, completed in about AD 96 when the Apostle John was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the book of Revelation.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother West,

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Bro. West]

I am not advocating adding or subtracting to the words of God in any way shape or form, in fact I have gotten others out of translations that do just that. What I am saying can be summed up below, by John Robinson to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

[Pastor Scott Markle]

5 hours ago, Bro. West said:

I am not advocating adding or subtracting to the words of God in any way shape or form . . .

And yet, Brother West, you said the following in your above article:

On 12/19/2021 at 4:14 PM, 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)

1.  You employed the phrase "advance revelations" in application to "the King James Bible," which came approximately 1500 years AFTER the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek had been completed.  It seems then that you are advocating that the King James translation has provided us with "advance [added] revelations" above that of the Holy Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek.

2.  You further indicated that ONLY "the King James Bible" could establish these "advance revelations" about which you speak.  It seems then that you are advocating concerning the New Testament apostles and prophets of the first century, upon which our Lord Jesus Christ founded His church (as per Ephesians 2:20), He Himself being the Chief Corner Stone, that those New Testament apostle and prophets could not have known these "advance revelations" of truth, since they would not exist for another 1500 years after their time when the King James translation came forth.  Indeed, it seems that you are advocating that no New Testament believer throughout the first 1600 years of the church age could have known these "advance revelations" of truth, until the Lord our God brought them forth for English speaking peoples through the King James translation, since they ONLY can be established by the "King James Bible" (as per your teaching).

Now, I myself have clearly and emphatically declared this to be a FALSE DOCTRINE.  Indeed, I myself have declared it to be a false doctrine worthy of SEPARATION.  Thus I present my previous posting again:

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother West,

Claiming that the King James translation provided/provides "advance revelation" on the original Hebrew and Greek is a false doctrine that strikes directly against the teaching of Holy Scripture.  

If you wish to convince me otherwise, then demonstrate FROM HOLY SCIPTURE that God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation (or through any other translation for that matter).  For if Holy Scripture itself does not teach it, then indeed my mind is already "made up" - I refuse to accept it.

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Jim_Alaska]

On 12/21/2021 at 1:58 PM, Hugh_Flower said:

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. 

This sounds very much like what the JW's teach about what they call "new light". In their case, they use it to teach that the false doctrines they hold can change to other false doctrines because of new light.

Consequently, when some doctrine they have held to for years is exposed for the error that it is, they come up with new light.

[Hugh_Flower]

5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

This sounds very much like what the JW's teach about what they call "new light". In their case, they use it to teach that the false doctrines they hold can change to other false doctrines because of new light.

Consequently, when some doctrine they have held to for years is exposed for the error that it is, they come up with new light.

Yeah, that’s why I said careful. I mean something exact but I can’t quite nail it , in my writing as of the moment. ( I am severely dyslexic and I do apologize. )

[Jerry]

God gives us more light as we search and study the Scriptures - not new light in the sense that it was not in there in the first place, but could be new to us in that we never knew those truths or understood those passages and principles before (or to the extent we now do). Any light or understanding the Holy Spirit gives us today, was already always there in His Word, even though we didn't see or grasp it before. When we start thinking we have some new revelation (implying something that previously was not in God's Word, or previously not found in the underlying preserved texts), then we are already on the wrong path and perhaps in danger of departing from the faith or leading others away from the truth.

Stick with the Word of God, rightly divide it, pray for wisdom and cling to the truths you find. As you build upon your understanding of God's Word and apply it, He gives you more - but not new or advanced revelation.

[Bro. West]

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie. The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. 1Th 5:21 I have done this over the years with men who love the BOOK more than me.

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that.

The second definition of revelation is stated in Webster 1828. 12.

2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament.

John Robinson stated the same thing in his address to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

What is Bro. Robinson is he a heretic? I wot not. He is speaking of further light and not adding, subtracting or twisting Scripture. This is new light contain in the BOOK itself.

And I would not consider him a JW nor myself. And I know that the English language is changing. Gay, prick, bowels, and suffer have been altered and debased as well as other words. I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

I Lord willing will comment on this more later. Merry Christ------mas

[Bro. West]

In order to put to rest the overtones on advance revelations as being false doctrine, I will give just one example and one only. If more were given it would be a waste of time for if you reject this you will reject any others.

For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Act 19:37 KJV, Geneva and Tyndale also say churches.

Ever newer libel translates churches as temples when it comes to this including the NKJV.

Why did the translators of the KJV carry on this advance revelation? I mean surely they were learned in the original languages.

Do you who advocate the original languages cry error? If so, then why not.

The chapter from verse 21 to the end is about the goddess Diana which fell from Jupiter. Do you know of a pagan “churches” that worships the Queen of heaven (Jer. 44), who’s name has been changed to Mary. Now you know that pagans have churches and craftsmen as well

[BrotherTony]

5 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It was said or implied that I would add to or subtracted words from the TEXT. I would rather die first, that is a lie. The original post was given rather naively for I stated that I wanted to polish it and check it for errors.

But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. 1Th 5:21 I have done this over the years with men who love the BOOK more than me.

I have never said from a pulpit or a class room that a better rendering should be, unfortunately the KJV said this (Easter rather than Passover or Jesus rather than Joshua)

And when I stated in a previous post that: !Tim.3: 15, And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

To use verse 16 as pertaining to the originals and disregard verse 15 is foolish. Did little Tim have the originals? My, My what a lucky kid. Only one brother acknowledged that.

The second definition of revelation is stated in Webster 1828. 12.

2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament.

John Robinson stated the same thing in his address to the Mayflower.

For he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to breake forth out of his holy Word. He took occasion also miserably to bewaile the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who were come to a period in Religion, and would goe no further then the instruments of their Reformation: As for example, the Lutherans they could not be drawne to goe beyond what Luther saw, for whatever part of God’s will he had further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die then embrace it. And so also, saith he, you see the Calvinists, they stick where he left them: A misery much to bee lamented; For though they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God had not revealed his whole will to them: And were they now living, saith hee, they would bee as ready and willing to embrace further [2] light, as that they had received. Here also he put us in mind

What is Bro. Robinson is he a heretic? I wot not. He is speaking of further light and not adding, subtracting or twisting Scripture. This is new light contain in the BOOK itself.

And I would not consider him a JW nor myself. And I know that the English language is changing. Gay, prick, bowels, and suffer have been altered and debased as well as other words. I do not claim to be infallible nor a bible scholar. A scholar is one who hath mastered his subject.

I Lord willing will comment on this more later. Merry Christ------mas

What you implied at one of the two between gap theory and non-gap and one teaching false doctrine...wrong. These are opinons, both that could be supported either way. I'm really finding it hard to take you seriously on some of the things you post. "Libel translations?" Really? UGH! Advanced revelation??? NO such critter...and nowhere supported by Scriptures!

Edited December 25, 2021 by BrotherTony

[Pastor Scott Markle]

6 hours ago, Bro. West said:

In regards to the statement that you can not fellowship with those who advocate false doctrine is rather high minded.

Is it "high-minded" to walk in obedience unto the Lord my God?  God forbid!

Romans 16:17-18 -- "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."

1 Timothy 6:3-5 -- "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Titus 1:10-11 -- "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake."

(Note:  I would think since you hold so strongly to the "advance revelation" of the King James translation, and since I equally as strongly oppose it, that you would equally determine to break fellowship from me as I have to have no fellowship with you.)

6 hours ago, Bro. West said:

1. Some Baptist believe the tribulation will only be 3 ½ years other teach 7.

2. Some Baptist teach close communion and other open.

3. Some Baptist teach the gap fact or theory others do not.

In each of the 3 cases some one is teaching a false doctrine. You can not have it both ways, and of course we are not allowing damnable doctrine to enter in.

It should be noted that in each case wherein I have expressed myself on the matter of separation from your false doctrine, I have communicated that I believe your false doctrine is one that is WORTHY of separation.  I do not view every doctrinal difference from my own as worthy of separation.  Indeed, I would view that doctrinal difference as wrong; for if I viewed it as right, I would hold to it, rather than reject it.  However, I do not view all doctrinal differences as those which "cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine" (as per Romans 16:17-18) or as those which are contrary to a walk after godliness (as per 1 Timothy 6:3-5) or as those which deceive and spiritually subvert less mature believers (as per Romans 16:17-18 & Titus 1:10-11).  On the other hand, I most certainly do view your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation as a false doctrine that IS worthy of separation.

Now, concerning your examples above:

1.  I have only encountered one individual who has taught a 3.5 year tribulation as opposed to a 7 year tribulation.  I do indeed view this as a false doctrine.  Concerning that individual, I believe that he himself is somewhat confused in his Bible study.  However, considering other things which that individual holds, which I would also consider false, it is likely that I would indeed separate from him over his body of false ideas.

2.  I do not view the "Baptist" conflict over "closed," "close," or "open" communion (with various definitions thereof) as being worthy of separation.  However, depending on the manner in which some might communicate or press the issue to cause overmuch division, offences, and strifes, I might choose to separate therefrom.

3.  I have indeed encountered Baptists who hold to the "gap theory" concerning Genesis 1:1-2.  Depending on how far they apply the matter or how hard they push the matter, I could indeed come to the place wherein I might break fellowship with them.

(Note: Attempting to undercut or oppose the Biblical doctrine and practice of separation will not work effectively with me.  It most certainly will not turn me aside from my opposition of your false doctrine concerning the "advance revelations" of the King James translation.)