Jordan Kurecki

15 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed, the semantic range of a word is of great significance when doing any word study, whether in English, Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.  Furthermore, when a particular Hebrew or Greek word is used hundreds of times throughout Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, we are able to gather a significant amount of data concerning the Scriptural semantic range of that given word.  Even so, as I have mentioned already, the Hebrew word which is translated "that which pertaineth unto" is used 325 times throughout the Holy Spirit inspired Old Testament.  What then do we find concerning the semantic range of this Hebrew word when we look up ALL 324 other usages?

We find that it is translated throughout the King James translation with the following semantic range:

 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")

It is worthy to notice that of these 325 times it is NOT translated as something made of clothe, clothing, garment even a single time.  Why not?  Because that which is made of (woven) clothe, clothing, is NOT a part of the word's semantic range.  Rather, the basic meaning of the word is "something manufactured from natural substances, such as stone, wood, animal skin, metal, precious stone, etc."  

Yet it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that in the context of Deuteronomy 22:5 the word is referring to something that is WEARABLE.  So, does this contextual usage create a whole new semantic range element for the word, or has the word study revealed that the semantic range of the word already contains things that are wearable?  Actually our word study has revealed that something wearable is already a part of the Biblical semantic range, even though clothing precisely is not a part of that semantic range.  21 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses jewelry, which is certainly wearable, but is not something made of clothe, clothing.  10 times the Biblical semantic range encompasses armor, and another 18 times it encompasses armorbearer (wherein our given Hebrew word is joined with that for "bearing, bearer" to create "armor-bearer"); and armor is certainly wearable, although it also was not made of clothe, clothing.  Even so, there is no need to move outside the semantic range of the word as revealed by the other 324 usages, since they already include things that are wearable.  Clothing/garments by definition are wearable, but not everything that is wearable is clothing.

What is the point of all of this?  First, both by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.  Second, is it possible that the PRINCIPLE of the verse, as gleaned from the MEANING of the verse, might lead to APPLICATIONS in some cultures that include pants-wear?  Yes, this is certainly possible.  Yet it should be understood that its application to pants-wear is NOT a part of the inherent MEANING of the verse, but is only an APPLICATION of the PRINCIPLE at certain times for certain cultural circumstances.  

(Note: Lest you all think me to be a complete "reprobate" - My own wife (I have no daughters) does NOT wear pants.  On the other hand, I cannot declare that the prohibition of Deuteronomy 22:5 toward women inherently refers to pants-wear.  I do NOT believe that nature itself teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.  I also do NOT believe that Scripture teaches that pants-wear is inherently man's wear.)

Certainly, this is accurate.  The grammar of Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly talks about something that is wearable, something that can be put "on."

This is where I would contend that your grammatical logic has gone astray.  As I stated above, clothing by definition is certainly wearable; but NOT everything that is wearable is clothing.  Your grammatical logic seems to be -- It is clearly something wearable; therefore, it must be clothing.  My grammatical logic would be -- It is clearly something wearable; the Biblical word study reveals that clothing is not a part of the semantic range, but that two other wearable things are indeed a part of the semantic range (jewelry and armor); therefore, it is not referring to clothing precisely, but either to man's jewelry or man's armor (and I have logical reasoning why I lean toward the "armor" choice).

There is no doubt that the King James translators recognized from the grammatic usage of the Hebrew preposition that this context was referring to something wearable.  However, my presentation has NOT denied this Biblical reality at all.  Rather, my presentation has indicated that "wearable" does NOT necessarily mean "clothing."  Even so, it is worthy to note that although the King James translators certainly did employ the verb "wear" to indicate something wearable in this context, they did NOT employ a word for clothing/garment/raiment/etc. in the opening portion of the verse, which is also instructive concerning their understanding of the Hebrew grammar.

So, are my conclusions contrary to many among Independent Fundamental Baptists?  Yes.  Are my conclusions developed on a whim?  No.  Are my conclusions built upon some real effort of actual Bible study?  Yes.

I understand what you are saying and will have to give it some more thought, Perhaps you are right that I assumed wearable=clothing in this context.

Also, I never asserted that pants was inherently mans wear. I agree as you stated “by its actual Hebrew grammar and its original Mosaic context, the verse could not have been referring to pants-wear.  Attempts to indicate that pants-wear is somehow inherently built into the ORIGINAL MEANING of the verse are false to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.” 

My response was based on an argument I have heard from some claiming that the passage refers exclusively to weapons and attire of war and who thus limit the passage to things as women going to war, and who want to exclude any inclusion of clothing. 

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So, that which is DIFFERENT is NOT the same, right?  I did not choose these differences.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired these DIFFERENCES.  I wonder if He had a reason.  I wonder if we should consider His reason.

________________________________________

Indeed, this is a very important matter in Bible study - When God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired something to be different in wording, then it would be negligent of us as Bible students not to consider the meaning of and reason for that difference.  And until we do so, we have not yet acquired the precise meaning of a given passage, and thus are not rightly prepared to understand the Biblical principle thereof or the behavioral application thereof.

So then, if the Hebrew word which God the Holy Spirit Himself inspired for "that which pertaineth unto" does not ever mean garment/clothing, but it obviously does refer to wearable attire, what actually does it mean?  In order to discern this Biblically, I believe that we would be required to do the word study of ALL 325 occurrences throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.  Yet who is willing to do the due diligence of that study work?  Sadly, among Independent Fundamental Baptists, with whom I stand by committed conviction, I have not found very many.

 

I basically have agreed with almost everything you have said up to this point, but I just want to offer some light, pushback on this. 

Even in the bible itself, especially in the Gospels for example, you will often see words that are different from each other used to in those inspired parallel accounts, but words which are closely synonymous. Even in the KJO preface (Which I know is not inspired) they defend their practice of NOT translating Hebrew or Greek words consistently by appealing to their perception that God used a "diversity" of words to express the same sense in his word. Couple that with the Hebrew practice of parallelism which often contrast, expands, and sometimes even states one singular idea with two different phrases, I think we should be careful of making a sharp distinction simply due to different words choices. Yes different word choices do sometimes denote different meanings, but not always. 

Another caution about doing words studies as well is in order, words have what we call "Semantic Range", meaning that a word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which it used. For example, the word  "good" in English can mean a variety of things, it can mean "morally excellent" as in "The law is good" or it can mean "pleasant" as in the "the food tastes good" or it can mean "of a high quality" as in "he does good work" etc etc etc. All of those meanings are slightly different in nuance and highly contextualized. Some words can have pretty significant difference depending on context, for example the English word run. You can "run" to the store, meaning you "went", you can "run" a business, meaning you're in charge and responsible for it, you can also "run" for your life, meaning you fled, a car automobile can "run" meaning it operates properly. 

That being said, a word study, whereby one looks at all the occurrences of word in the Bible will be good for illuminating the semantic range of word, but some people make the mistake of forcing the sense of a word in one context, onto another context and vice verse, or of trying to apply ALL the different senses and uses of a word into each place the word is found in linguistics this is called the "illegitimate total fallacy". Just because a word has one sense in 324 places for example, it may still yet have another distinct sense in 1 other single place based on context.

That being said, I essentially agree with the conclusions you are presenting here, but I just wanted to point out something that I see people say. People often say things that are different are not the same, but usually when people say they, they are only looking at the form of words and not the sense, and what many people do not realize is sometimes different forms can express similar or identical "senses" 

That being said, let me make some observations. 
1. כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה both appear to be set in parallel to each-other, with the second clause clearly being about a man wearing a woman's garment. 
2. כְלִי appears to be a word that has a rough meaning of "articles, possessions, objects" etc, and the type of objects it can refer to seems largely dependent on context, in some contexts it appears to refer to items of warfare, in some places just general objects, in some contexts used of a yoke of oxen, and we could go on and on and on. 
3. In Hebrew, a rigidly literal translation of the phrase in question would be "There should not be upon women, כְּלִי  of a man. 

From my point of view, based on context and what seems to be a basic sense of כְּלִי that the word is in fact referring to clothing. One way of understanding the passage would be something like "There should not be the general things of men, UPON women", the Hebrew preposition "עַל" literal means "upon" and that tells us that the כְּלִי  in mind are things that can be "on" someone. The Hebrew preposition and the parallelism found in the passage, seems to strongly imply to me that the כְּלִי is in fact referring to the clothing of men. After all, what are the "things of men" that can be physically "upon" someone but clothing? I think the fact that the KJV translators translated it as a woman shall not "wear" seems to indicate that the KJV translators picked up on these clues as well, especially since there is no actual explicit Hebrew verb in the first half of the verse that actually means "wear".

 I don't honestly see any sharp distinction contextually to try and draw out a significant distinction between כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה in this particular context.

On 5/7/2022 at 6:09 PM, Disciple.Luke said:

My favorite Bible right now is the Keyword Study Bible. The prices fluctuate but you can often find them for under 70$. If you don't mind bonded leather you can find them under 60$ usually.

I second this. This is an excellent study bible. 

4 hours ago, SureWord said:

Have you ever read the TR? Not what do done says about it but have you say down and read the entire text? If you did, which edition?

I can read the KJV, not the TR. That there makes it superior to the TR in my book.

If by “superior” you mean “more profitable” then yes, if you mean “more accurate” than absolutely not. 

How can a translate be superior to it’s source? Unless you think the original words in Greek given by inspiration were somehow lacking, which would be an unbiblical doctrine. 

Just because from a pragmatic perspective, you can read English and not Greek, does not mean the KJV is superior to the Greek TR. There are people in Uganda who speak Lugbara and not English, and the Lugbara bible is based on the critical text and is more or less closer to the NIV or ESV, does their lack of English understanding mean the Lugbara bible is more superior to the English KJV? 

On 1/11/2022 at 2:41 AM, Razor said:

Did God every tell anyone not to tithe?

If you want to play that game, in the New Testament people sold ALL that they had and laid it at the Apostles feet. Go to your church this Sunday and give literally every dollar you own, and then I will respect your consistency, after all, did God ever tell anyone not to give everything they have to the church? 

On 1/7/2022 at 12:13 PM, Jerry said:

Tithing was instituted 400+ years before Moses gave the Law (to Abraham in Genesis 14, reinforced by Jacob in Gen 28), taught in Proverbs (if you think that one command does not apply today, show me ONE other command in Proverbs that does not apply to the NT Christian - I went through it years ago trying to find some), and I believe referred to in 1 Corinthians 16, lay by him in store.

On another note (and I know this doesn't prove anything in itself), BUT if the command to tithe as stated in Malachi 3 does not apply at all, why would the Lord bless me and many others who are faithful to claim that promise?

Where in the Old Testament was Abraham COMMANDED by God to tithe? You seem to confuse descriptive history with it being “instituted by God”. Just because Abraham tithed, does not mean he did it because God “instituted” a tithe on him. The Old Testament is full of people giving things to God that he did not require, but simply because they CHOSE to in order to worship and honor God. 

16 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed. And that whole system of textual "criticism" (which actually started somewhat before Westcott and Hort made it so popular) is a bunch of bologna (unless perchance you think that bologna is good, then you will want to insert some other negative descriptive).  That whole system is (in my opinion) the devil's attempt to defeat God's divine work of preservation.  The devil certainly cannot win that battle, because he simply cannot defeat the divine work of God; but he sure can deceive many throughout the course of the engagement.

The canons of textual criticism are pretty much just opinion and conjecture passed off as science in my opinion, I want to know what experiments they have done to prove their different canons. Like was there some study done that demonstrates when people are asked to copy something that they are more likely to add things than to omit them? 

IMO it's much easier to omit something than to add something not there. 

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

Okay, let me add this to clarify then: There are no other mainstream versions today that are solely based on the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts. There may be some individuals, maybe even a church here and there that uses something like the KJV21 or something like that - but those do not have the support of the people like the KJV itself or certain modern versions. I have no desire to rehash the differences between the NKJV and the KJV - the fact there ARE differences is proof they are not the same and using the exact same manuscripts. Just because you are someone that likes to sit on the NKJV fence and has a tolerance for it doesn't mean others should accept your viewpoint on it either. Seeing this is a KJVonly site, I am standing where this site stands, and I don't need to prove that stand any more than I have in all the years I have been here. If someone cared, they could do a search for all my past posts or search for older posts on the NKJV, if they are still available on this site (the older a topic or posts are, the harder it is to access or view them).

I am not asking you to prove the KJVO position, nor did I anywhere state my position, nor did I attack the KJV. I simply asked you to give one example to substantiate a very specific claim. If your not willing to do that, nor if you are desiring to discuss the differences between the KJV and the NKJV, then why did YOU bring it up? You are the one that brought up this oft repeated talking point. I find it rather disingenuous that now you are saying you don't wish to discuss that point. You are on a public forum and you made an assertion, I simply asked for one example, if the examples are so clear and obvious, I don't understand why you would not take the opportunity to give concrete evidence? 

 

32 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Brother Tony, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much, but wanted to clarify: this board and most members here are KJVonly. Yes, some are KJV-preferred. That is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Every single other version is from some form of the Critical Text - therefore not preserved texts. This includes the NKJV, despite what others say (the proof is in the pudding and in the readings that differ from the KJV).

Jerry, just wanted to clarify, what you are saying here is simply untrue. The Modern English version for example is also based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text/Greek Textus Receptus, and so is the NKJV, regardless of what you are asserting. Just because the NKJV differs in translation choice from the KJV, does not mean it's based on a different Greek text, anymore than the KJV is from different text than the previous Geneva Bible and Bishops Bible (of which the KJV was a officially a revision of) If you could demonstrate one example of where the NKJV follows the critical text, I would be interested to see it.

If you want to reject the NKJV for it's translational choices, there are some legitimate criticisms to be made there, but to say it's based on a different text is patently false. Even if you still wrote off the NKJV as being " based on the critical text" (even though it's not), the MEV exists and entire churches even use it, Also the Geneva Bible is based on the Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, and there are individuals today still using it, in fact there is even a "Modernized Geneva Bible" with modern spelling of words (No word  changes), therefore the charge the the KJV "is the only current English translation in use that is based on the preserved Textus Receptus Greek Text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text" is simply not true. 

20 hours ago, SureWord said:

(there must be 10,000 to the English text to qualify as a new version $$$).

Can you please provide a source for this statement, I have never been able to find any law that actually states this but would be glad to see it. 

22 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

Since we just started missions not too long ago, we currently support 3. and we're adding a 4th and 5th soon.

Each church has it's own philosophy, ours it to support less with more money, then support more with little money. 

Totally agree with your philosophy. It certainly would cost both local churches and missionaries less money in the long run, and also would make furloughs easier. Also makes it easier for your church to actually mentally keep up with your supported missionaries. a lot easier to keep up with 5 missionaries at say 300 a month than 20 missionaries at 75 a month. 

12 minutes ago, PastorMatt said:

I was asking  question if it was $$$ driven, not making a statement. That's why I used a "?" at the end.

Sorry, I interpreted your question as somewhat of a rhetorical question. 

On 10/24/2021 at 2:02 PM, PastorMatt said:

So what is the point of this new Bible? 

More $$$?

I highly doubt it's motivated by $, they probably just feel like the NASB has some deficiencies and wished to correct them. 

I would be hesitant to ascribe ill motives when we don't know them. 

On 10/22/2021 at 6:24 PM, SureWord said:

It's out of John MacArthur's Master's University. It claims to be "in the lineage of the KJV" buts it's just a rehash of the Lockman Foundation's NASB. 

What he said, basically just a revision of the NASB. 

On 9/27/2021 at 10:05 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

The question here is NOT about what the Lord our God, the Almighty God, is able to do; rather, the question is about what the Lord our God has revealed concerning what He HAS done in this matter.  If anyone claims a teaching that is not accurate to what God's Word itself reveals as truth, then that teaching is false, even if that teaching sounds really good.

On 9/15/2021 at 5:45 PM, Jerry said:

It has been a while since I read the info, but I think it was in the Intro to the NKJV where they state that they also used other manuscripts. However, even if my memory is faulty on exactly where it is stated, a simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that they made translational choices based on other manuscripts than the TR.

For the sake of the argument, even if the TR and Masoretic Text were the primary manuscript used, they were not the only manuscripts used to come up with their translational choices.

I just went back and read through the NKJV preface, they do admit to CONSULTING the LXX and the Latin Vulgate, but they also claim the KJV translators at times followed the LXX and Latin Vulgate at times over the Hebrew text! Doing some research, it's at least agreed upon that the KJV translators 100% consulted other texts like the LXX. In fact in Genesis there is a marginal note in the KJV that references the LXX. 

There is a quite a bit of phraseology and words that the KJV borrowed and carried over from the Latin Vulgate into English. The Latin Vulgate seemed to have strong influence on the style of the KJV in some places. You can do research and google it yourself and find tons of influence that the Latin Vulgate had on the KJV..

The KJV translators absolutely consulted and looked at other Ancient Translations and even earlier English translations as well. 

Dr. Price, the executive editor of the NKJV, on his personal website answered an accusation by D.A. Waite that the NKJV used a different OT text than the KJV and stated: “As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used--I personally made sure.” Here is the source from Dr. Price's website where you can read it for yourself: https://www.jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html

Arthur Farstad the executive editor of the NKJV has stated “Most current New Testaments use some modification of the Westcott-Hort text, such as an eclectic one not too far removed from that text. Seminary and college professors especially are surprised that the NKJV used such a conservative text as the Textus Receptus..the NKJV is an update of an historic version translated from a specific type of text. We felt it was unwise to change the base from which it was made. As noted earlier, the translators of the English Revised Version of the New Testament (1881) were soundly criticized for slipping in the Westcott-Hort Greek text when it was not part of their mandate from the church.”

The KJV translators themselves included textual variants and references to other manuscripts in the original marginal notes. For example the margin in Matthew 26:26 says “Many Greek copies have, gave thanks”.  There are marginal notes of this nature in Matthew 1:11, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36,  and other places as well...

There is a whole segment on this link with these kinds of examples:https://bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/the-types-of-marginal-notes-in-the-1611-kjv

According to Scrivener there were 67 marginal notes of a textual nature in the original KJV. Does, to use your own words, a "simple look at the translator/marginal notes show that" the KJV translators "made translational choices based on other manuscripts"?

Dr. Price said in response to D.A. Waite: "So it is quite obvious that the KJV translators used marginal notes to identify variant readings in the Hebrew and Greek text, and they also referred to the ancient versions and church fathers in these notes. Usually their notes did not identify specific sources, yet Waite criticizes the NKJV for giving the same kind of marginal notes with more specific information.".. 

The NKJV Preface states: "The notes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings (and so terms such as "better manuscripts" are avoided), but they do clearly indicate the sources of the readings that diverge from the traditional text." Price went on to say "By the very nature of a translation it is understood that the words in the main body of a translation represent the content of the traditional text being followed, and that the alter­nate words in the marginal note represent the alternate readings found in the non-traditional texts. The fact that no evaluations were made, as are made in some modern versions, indicates that the editors were not suggesting that any alternate readings were necessarily better than the readings of the traditional text. Thus they do not express nor imply any lack of confidence in the tradi­tional text."

The NKJV has plenty of places in the OT where it lists the LXX or Latin Vulgate as places to SUPPORT it's following of the Masoretic text. For example in 1 Samuel 10:1 there is a marginal note that says "so with the MT (Masoretic text), Tg (Targum), Vg (Vulgate); LXX reads...." As you can see, the NKJV REFERENCES the Vulgate and Targum to SUPPORT it's FOLLOWING of the Masoretic text but does mention a variant in the LXX. 

Can you show me ONE single example where the NKJV disagrees with the KJV in the OT and has a marginal note stating that it followed something other than the Masoretic text? If you can I will gladly admit that I am mistaken and I will stop saying that the NKJV is based on the Masoretic text like the KJV. 

D.A. Waite in his criticism of the NKJV, criticized it for having a marginal note in Neh 3:20 that says "Zabbai".. Ironically the KJV has the same marginal note! So by criticizing the NKJV, he unintentionally criticizes the KJV! 

If your accusation is that the NKJV is to be rejected because they fail your criteria of having consulted and looked at other manuscripts/translations than the Masoretic text, to be consistent you would need to also reject the KJV by your own standard that you have put forth.

45 minutes ago, Jerry said:

Farouk, just to clarify, the KJV21 is a different translation of the Bible, not an update of the King James Bible. It is marketed as an update the same way the NKJV is an update (which it is not - it is an entirely different translation, only partly using the same underlying manuscripts).

I use to say in the past that the NKJV was based on different manuscripts than the KJV. I said that based on what I had heard and read online and I have come to believe that it is NOT true that the NKJV only partly uses the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV.

While I agree that the NKJV is a new translation and not simply an updated KJV, I do not believe it's factual that it only "partly uses the same underlying manuscripts", the NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. As part of my study for my Master of Theology in Biblical Languages, I have spent the last 7 months studying, comparing, noting differences and annotating several chapters in depth in the KJV, NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, In addition to my work in the OT, At this point I have looked at every verse in the NT of the NKJV except Revelation, and so far I have not found a single place where the NKJV departed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Textus Receptus. Every example I have seen cited in articles online where an accusation is made of the NKJV being based on a different text, I found after honesty study and and inquired of the specific cited examples that the issues were simply a differences of translation choices but differences which could somewhat reasonably be considered justifiable/allowable by the Hebrew/Greek. Many of the places I have looked at where people have accused the NKJV of following the Critical Text, the Critical Text has had the same Greek wording as the TR.

 Now, don't misunderstand me, one can certainly make a legitimate case for places in the NKJV where certain translational choices are unhelpful, subpar, or even erroneous; I have found myself disagreeing with translational choices that the NKJV has made in several places, however, claiming that the NKJV is based on different manuscripts than the KJV is an accusation that seems to be made without basis in truth. I have heard several people over the last few months claim that "Only the KJV is based on the right Hebrew and Greek texts and EVERY other translation is based on corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts", and as far as I can tell, this claim is NOT factually accurate. If any claim is not true, then it should stop being repeated.

Whenever false information is repeated, there are always people who eventually realize that the information was wrong, and eventually those people often throw the baby out with the bath water because of it. When they find something they were told about the KJV or other translations is false, then they will begin to question everything or to reject many if not all of the things they are told about the translation issue. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who were propelled into embracing a full on critical text position because of things they were taught about the Bible Translation issue that were false. There are many people who realize that popular KJV defenders like Gail Riplinger, and Sam Gipp tell false information, misleading information, and even outright lies, and sadly that often propels them to someone like James White who also gives false and misleading information.

You can't blindly trust everything people say just because they happen to agree with your position, you also can't blindly trust someone just because you respect them and they have godly character. We need to be discerning, and discernment does not mean you only use discernment with those OUTSIDE your church, circle, family, etc... True discernment means you are careful about EVERYTHING you hear and are taught. 

1 Th 5:21 says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" 

It's not 100% true that the differences between editions were only corrections in printing errors and spelling changes. Honestly none of us have any real way of knowing why there were changes because it's not like we have a written record given by the people who did the slight revisions on why they made their changes. With that being said, the differences between the different editions of the KJV are MASSIVELY minuscule. 

I believe the point and reason why people say that is because people who are King James Only commonly are claiming 100%, every word perfection and accuracy for their text, yet in any given church, depending upon if you have an Oxford or Cambridge, there will be actual substantial differences in some places, for some example there is a passage in Jeremiah 34:16 that has "he" in one edition and "ye" in another edition, or in a list of Joshua one edition may say "or sheba" and another edition may say "and sheba"

It's a fair question to ask, which edition today is correct? The Cambridge or Oxford? And upon what authority does anyone declare which one to be correct? In reaction to this point, there is a charismatic pentecostal in Australia that claims "God" audibly spoke to him and told him that a specific edition he calls the "Pure Cambridge Edition" is the perfect KJV edition. 

Another fair question is, if the 1611 and other editions had certain printing errors, how do we know that whatever current 1769 edition that we have now, does not also have some printing errors yet to be corrected?

The reason why people bring this up is because the original 1611 edition of the KJV does have some differences of substance, though minor, from most of the editions that people are carrying and using today. You can say all the differences are "just printing change and spelling changes".. but honestly nobody really knows if that's true. in 1769 when Blayney did his revision, none of the translators of the KJV were alive anymore, had he "corrected" printing errors, he would have technically had to do "textual criticism" on the English editions of the KJV available to him in that day in order to do that. Because KJVOist present the KJV as a 100% every word perfect text, pointing out that the text has changed in different editions, even though extremely minor, is an attempt to point out an inconsistency. Personally the substantial differences between KJV editions to me is really a non issue because the differences are so massively minor. 

Most KJVO people are unaware that there are different editions of the KJV text floating around out there, in any church that is KJVO its not uncommon for people to unknowingly have different editions amongst the congregation, albeit again the differences are so minor no one probably even notices. 

To be fair, most KJV people would NOT be willing to pardon the kind of differences seen between the different editions of the KJV, if those same kinds of differences were differences between say, the KJV and the NKJV. For example in 1 John 5:12 the 1611 KJV is missing a phrase like "of God" which is now currently found in pretty much all current editions:

If a modern translation removed "of God" from that verse, many people would be ranting and raving about the modern translation for "removing God".

15 minutes ago, trapperhoney said:

that's what drew me back here. had to reset my password to get in, and then there was no email  lol

 You probably did not actually have to reset your password, you may have clicked on a link that someone used to get your information which you gave them. 

One common tactic for scammers is to get you to click on a link or cause a link to pop up that makes it look like you need to reset your password so that you freely give away your information. You better change the password for whatever you gave your information when you "reset" your password. 

On 8/14/2021 at 9:34 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And I was waiting for that interaction, to see in what direction it might go.

You and me both haha.

I was hoping this would get more interaction. 

19 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I bought myself a large print defined Bible years ago...and that is the one my hubs is now using from which to preach. He needed a bit larger print (he also uses reading glasses...needs to go to the eye doctor LOL), so he co-opted it.  Christmas is coming, though, so I might just look into the TN Preaching Bible.

Just looked it up. 11.5 font is smaller than the one he's using, so I don't think that will work. Ah, well.

The high contrast paper though and premium TN font thought might make it easier to read even though its smaller. The paper having high opacity does wonders for readability.

16 hours ago, PastorMatt said:

Per title, it's about time I purchase a new Bible to preach from. My current  preaching Bible of 30+ years is beyond repair. It is a Scofield Bible and I'm starting to have a hard time reading the small print. he Bible has been taped together plenty of times, but pages keep falling out now so time to purchase a new Bible. Thank you, I'm not looking for wide margin Bible, but rather just a good Bible to use while preaching.

My questions are,

1. What type of KJV Bible do you recommend or even maybe use?  Scofield, Cambridge, Thompson Chain, etc. 
2. What size font do you like to use?
3. Goatskin, Lambskin, etc? Which one holds up better?

 

Matt, I have probably spent way too much time researching bibles and I have personally owned many many different bibles over the years. 


For just a preaching bible, I would 100% recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible, the cover is a durable genuine leather, the paper is premium quality, and the typography and layout are superb. 

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-preaching-bible-review/

The Maclaren is a slightly cheaper less premium edition of the preaching bible above:

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-maclaren-series-bible-review/

Also good is the Thomas Nelson Sovereign Collection, this one is smaller, compact, but has an amazing typographical layout. 

https://biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-nelson-kjv-sovereign-collection-bible-review/

I really am partial to anything published by Thomas Nelson, in my opinion lately their layouts and typography are incredible. I also really like their cross reference system because it has synonyms for archaic words in the margins. 

I do NOT recommend anything from Local Church Bible Publishers or Church Bible Publishers, the only thing they have going for them is that they use nice leather, but their paper quality is seriously subpar, their bibles usually have bad ghosting, and the typography in my opinion is just ugly and the fonts they use are ugly. Some people like that old classic look but I can’t stand it. 

As for Leather, Typically Genuine Leather/Cowhide and Goatskin are them out durable, Lambskin is super soft but it’s really not that durable. 

If your looking for recommendations for a study Bible, Ryrie is the one I would recommend, he is very balanced and his has a really nice layout where cross references are in the outer margins, he was Baptistic and Dispensational. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdwuDYtWew&t=3s

The other Study Bible I would recommend is the Thomas Nelson King James Study Bible, the genuine leather is high quality, and the notes are from an Independent Baptist perspective (was published by Liberty University in the 70s) The typography and layout is amazing and it has full color pictures, charts, etc. The only negative is it’s pretty large. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT0X2uDD2xs

If your just looking for something to preach from, I recommend the Thomas Nelson Preaching Bible. Or alternatively anything from the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection. Anything in the Thomas Nelson Premier Collection has high quality leather, paper, and typography. Once you start using one of the New Thomas Nelson’s you won’t want to use anything else. 

11 hours ago, SureWord said:

The Common Man's Reference Bible 

60,000 plus references alone makes it worth the purchase.

 

This bible has Ruckmanite notes in it.

On 3/4/2020 at 9:48 AM, PastorMatt said:

According to Jonah 2:2 & Matthew 12:40 some believe that Jonah did die in the belly of the whale. Since Jonah prayed and Jesus compared it to his literal resurrection, does that mean that Jonah did the same thing?

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

For the record I believe that Jonah was alive for three day and three nights, I'm just wanting to see what every here thinks/believes.

Hey Matt, 

I just happened to look at this verse yesterday and spent a considerable amount of time studying and reflecting on the Hebrew word "sheol" [Hell in Jonah 2:2]

I believe that many have a very narrow understanding of the English word "Hell". Many think "Hell" only refers to a place of punishment, Webster 1828 defines "Hell" as "the place of the dead", which is much more in line with the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades. I have a theory that "hell" in English has changed in meaning over the years and come to be more specific than the word originally was. In Luke 16 both the Rich man and Lazarus seems to be in "Hades". It seems that at least prior to the death of Christ, all people both righteous and unrighteous went to "Sheol" and "Hades", though the experience in "Sheol" and "Hades" would be different for the righteous vs the unrighteous. 

Consider the UBS Translators Handbook comments on Jonah 2:2:
"The prayer is described as coming from deep in the world of the dead, or “out of the belly of Sheol” (neb). In other words the worshiper is pictured as having “one foot in the grave,” to use an English idiom, or in “the jaws of death,” as Luther expresses it" Price, B. F., & Nida, E. A. (1978). A translators’ handbook on the Book of Jonah (p. 77). Stuttgart: United Bible Societies.

The NET Notes also are helpful in understanding this: 

Sheol was a name for the place of residence of the dead, the underworld (see Job 7:9–10; Isa 38:17–18). Jonah pictures himself in the belly of Sheol, its very center—in other words he is as good as dead. Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Jon 2:1–2). Biblical Studies Press.

I believe Jonah's language was figurative. Jonah being in the belly of the fish was a picture of Christ being dead. You could say Jonah was a type. I don't see how Jonah could cry out to God if he had already died and actually went to Sheol, unless God answered Jonah's prayer while he was actually in Sheol.