Posts Tagged ‘King James’

Bible Believing Ministries John Hinton

February 19, 2012
A bible from 1859.

Image via Wikipedia

Bible Believing Ministries John Hinton:
http://www.kjv-asia.com/bible_believing_ministries_john_hinton.htm

This is a deserving ministry.

The Devil has spread a flood of lies in all the world against the truth, and he’s using the most respected book of Christians to do it to Christians too.

But the truth will prevail, and the Gates of Hell will not stand against the truth.

Advertisements

“Problems” with the KJB? Think again, look again, be a Berean

November 15, 2011

The NIV and other translations and the accusations of “problems” with the KJB I have seen have provided excellent occasions to show why I am a KJBO defender. Two-thirds of the Bible-gone! The accuracy of a different second-person singular–Gone! The cardinal order of the six days of creation –Gone! Not one jot or tittle shall fail–Gone with thousands on thousands of jots and tittles. Jots and tittles were an obvious allusion to the tiniest nuance of meaning in the prophecies, and they are lost first in all the dynamic-philosophy translations, and lost in unnecessary “language modernization” in the others.

For God is not the author of the confusion of a hundred different translations. I have yet to see ONE BIBLICAL REFERENCE that says God would never intervene to ensure one accurate standard for his word, down to jot and tittle.

By their fruits ye shall know them. Claiming that the gospel of Mark leaves Jesus in the tomb and never left us the Great Commission (profusely quoted by the earliest Christian leaders) reminds of me of Job’s comment: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me”. What can we expect from the Greek base compiled by a pair of reprobates about whom their own sons wrote that they did not believe Jesus was God, that Charles Darwin was right and the creation narrative in Genesis was myth, that Jesus’ sacrifice for sins was a “bloody horror”, and that belief in the miracles was stupid.

Yeah, I can believe they were almost incredulous at the request from the Bishop for their help.

Where is the verse that says God said he would never ever make sure the words in the original autographs were understood the way he wanted them to be understood ages later? With all he said about his word, why oh why would he trust in us mere men for the job??!

Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

The Great Commission

October 23, 2011

Shortly before Jesus ascended into heaven, he told his followers to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to all the world”.

Christians are all a-bluster about those bad Muslims, about the sorry state of affairs in society today, lots of worries, and many concerns are real. But when we realize what sacrifice many before us have made to bring the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, and with the shortness of time, it should make us excited about racing to make salvation available to as many as possible around the world.

Luke 4:18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

King James Bible translators: Inspired or not? What about marginal notes?

October 2, 2011

The King James Bible translators don’t have to know they are inspired. King David didn’t stop and think about his famous words to Goliath, they just poured out. In fact, if they had been of such a mindset they might have been tempted to replace the unknown Hebrew word “behemoth” into a best prayerful guess from what they know instead of using a transliteration like they did. Modern translators make a pure guess especially the Creation-doubters.

What, you don’t think God can inspire a translation like the Hebrew and Aramaic translations in the Tanukh of conversations in Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian and Latin tongues?  Is God’s tongue cut off to leave us without a standard, without the  “original autographs” of all 66 books, and let us depend on man’s faulty wisdom?

The rebuttal from advocates of a confusion of translations is that believers in the KJB as God’s choice today do NOT trust the translators of the time any more than we trust the prophets of old. We just know that according to God’s own word, his word is the most important thing because it’s the standard by which all truth and doctrine is measured, and he would not leave us dependent on Harvard Divinity grads and the like for even its wording.

Entropy, Adam and Eve, Seth’s sisters, genetics and in-breeding

October 2, 2011

n-breeding was not a problem for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. From the Law of Entropy and the knowledge that today all species incorporate some “genetic defects” within, products of mutation, and from the knowledge that Adam and Eve were “very good” creations, perfect in fact, directly fashioned by God, inbreeding was not a problem for the first generations, neither for the grandchildren of Noah.

Besides which, the genome is built by God with mechanisms for adaptation to changing conditions, including great numbers of “spare parts” –which used to be called “junk DNA” by the clueless arrogant smarter-than-thou Darwinian pagans.
That’s right, many superstitious tribes of Old Testament times also believed of a stock “Thou art my father”, and of a stone, “Thou hast brought me forth”.
Read Jeremiah 2:27, it’s right there.

More Darwinian Follies…

February 25, 2011

Good examples of misinformation and information gaps repeated ad nauseum to confuse the gullible:

See here an example of backwards logic: “The ‘Hobbit were diseased humans’ argument is a long way from proven, yet you deploy it like its been settled.”

Turn that around. The point was and is that the Hobbit was treated as a glorious missing link until oops, what about this, what about that, and some of them said it was consistent with “diseased humans”. Except I think it is just another example of short people, like the Pygmies in Africa.

They are in danger of being eaten –literally– out of existence right now in Africa, as Christianity gets pushed back and the old paganism recovers. They are now regarded as animals by warring tribes around them, “missing links” you might say.

Christian missionaries are leading the charge to save them from their persecutors.

“Nested heirarchies of organisms” are a natural corollary of both functionality, using the same building blocks for survival and propagation of life –DNA, proteins, and all that.

It’s telling that evolutionist logic can get “convergent evolution” when the functionality doesn’t fit the hierarchies, but cannot see functional convergence as a natural attribute of design.

Claims that the “fossils show a continuum of features from the past to the present” only serve to expose the abysmal state of science education, and the attack on true science that the Darwinian religious beliefs represent.

…Noah’s…would expect to see a uniform distribution of animal types across the world, originating as they did from one release point somewhere in the middle east…

LOL. Another example of a belly-laughing demonstration of selective logical circuits, who don’t know how to apply the principles they use elsewhere to this one. There are major campaigns on to save ecologies endangered from the introduction of alien species, as we speak.

They brag about how fast a peppered moth goes from white to black to white, but fast radiated breeding and natural selection works for your theory you see it at work here too.

Here you go, a YOUNG-Earth creationist who explains how the marsupials and exotic animals of Australia show consistency with the idea of descent from their non-marsupial counterparts:

http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/marsupial_migration.html

The various kinds of animals in Australia line up with the kinds of animals elsewhere, suggesting common descent from those animals’ ancestors, rather than a common marsupial ancestor. This is one of Darwinians’ favorite toys in their grab bag: “convergent evolution” based on conditions in Australia.

Stephen Gould has admitted that the fossils show no continuum of anything at all, where it counts. There are no mammals with feathers, but neither do you have anything at all between reptiles and birds, and the showcase ‘examples’ of one or two break down to plainly one or the other on examination.

Here is the Biblical description of DNA in fact:

Psalms 139:15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

How many lines of evidence form nature corroborate your bible’s account?

Plenty. There’s the above verse describing DNA. Others describe the effect of a nearby nuclear explosion on human flesh in a future prophecy, the vast currents, or “rivers”, in the oceans (at a time when Greeks were saying the oceans were generally calm and shallow), they hydrologic cycle, and don’t forget an amazing set of rules for scientific hygiene in food preparation and treatment of diseases. The “stretching out” of the heavens.

Looks like none to me.

Well, Jesus healed the blind who accepted faith in him, and he can heal you too.

Its embarrassing to watch.

Yes, like Muggeridge predicted, [Darwinian] evolution will be seen soon enough as the object of ridicule and hilarious laughter, as scientists will marvel at its pagan mythology.

Nothing new under the sun:

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

Let us all flee from the kind of paganism that will only lead to another Hitler’s fascination with helping the human species evolve, another Margaret Sanger (founder of the Birth Control League) that wants us to eliminate “inferior stock”.

Let us find love in the God of Love and his Son.

Thee thou thine

October 14, 2010

Our language is muddy in the English language when it comes to the 2nd singular pronoun. Meaning, we use the same word for both singular and plural. The best “translation” of the Bible is one that avoids muddying, rather follows a Biblical standard from the word of God. The word of prophecy is not of private interpretation. It is absolutely impossible to do the Bible justice by “translating” it into the usage applied in street vernacular.

The Bible is not so muddy. See this next link to understand how distinguishing you-singular and you-plural in the KJB makes it much more understandable, whereas others are much more ambiguous:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thou.html

More than one dictionary will inform you that these words were gone from everyday speech long before the KJB came along.

Even at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou you’ll find this:

One notable consequence of the decline in use of the second person singular pronouns thou, thy, and thee is the obfuscation of certain sociocultural elements of Early Modern English texts, such as many character interactions in Shakespeare‘s plays. In Richard III, for instance, the conversation between the Duke of Clarence and the two murderers takes on a very different tone if it is read in light of the social connotations of the pronouns used by the characters.[11]

and…

As William Tyndale translated the Bible into English in the early 16th century, he sought to preserve the singular and plural distinctions that he found in his Hebrew and Greek originals. Therefore, he consistently used thou for the singular and ye for the plural regardless of the relative status of the speaker and the addressee. By doing so, he probably saved thou from utter obscurity and gave it an air of solemnity that sharply distinguished it from its original meaning.[2] Tyndale’s usage was imitated in the King James Bible, and remained familiar because of that translation.[13]

They say it’s still used in some places. Here next is a link to a simple conjugation table:

http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html

Peter admonishes us to desire the “sincere milk” of the word. We go right by that verse, I always have until I discovered the issue of Bible versions.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

See the dictionary definition of “sincere” below. Diluting the singular-plural distinction is an adulteration of the Bible in English.

sin·cere (sn-sîr) adj. sin·cer·er, sin·cer·est 1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend.
3. Archaic Pure; unadulterated.

1 Peter 2:2  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

Jesus the Word of God

September 19, 2010

Why does John refer to Jesus Christ as “the Word” in John 1?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Both Jesus in the flesh, and the word of God are called “truth” (as an object). Not just that they are true, but they ARE truth.

Teno Groppi said: “I’d say the KJB is the written version of Jesus Christ.” http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv.0

That sounds like a good way to put it.

God wrapped up his identity inside the word of God. You could say he “conflated” (“to bring together; meld or fuse”) the two (himself and his word), and the word of God was made flesh, the Word of God.

Not “just” the KJB, since God was from before he even said “Let there be light” of course. But even of the beginning we have John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is of course independent of each “manifestation” of his word, whether the Torah at the time of Moses, or the historical books and the prophetic books as they were written, and the New Testament books as they were also written.

But he has made plain that God the Son is “embodied” in the written Word, the word of God.

God made it as plain as he could. We are told from the scripture that he has magnified his word “above all his name”.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

In Isaiah he tells us that if anyone speaks anything “not according to this word”, there is no light in them:

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Okay now.

If John 1:1 and John 1:14 and I John 5:7 (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”) have nothing to do with the scripture, then what do you think they are doing there?

And if God made such an important issue –above all others!– of his written word, as being the “scriptural manifestation” for us of the “person” of Jesus Christ, how can anyone claim that he had no interest in supervising its integrity throughout the ages?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

But, now “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders have to look for “the basic essential doctrines” in the corruptions of man, by the admission of all “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders.

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

For many years as a Christian I had no idea about the importance of the versions issue and did not even think about it, although I always used the AV (KJB), and of course did realize there were some verses in other versions like the NIV with suspect wording.

It’s a significant factor that people who actually consider it a central issue tend to go in one direction. In other words, anyone who thinks God would have only one Bible today without confusion, settle on just one of the “choices”.

Compare it for understanding to the situation in creationism–evolution debates. True agnostics are rare that both (1) say they are undecided and don’t know if there is a God, and at the same time (2) are studying the subject intensely. That’s because they almost always spend little time finding themselves in the camp of believers.

The Word is the final authority for deciding among doctrines.

Deviations from “the Word” (aka “the word of God”) in POO-versions based on the false POO doctrine (Phantom Originals Only) have already been used to support deviations of doctrines from “the faith of our fathers”.

—trutherator

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.

(1).STRAIGHTFORWARD SENSE OF THE SECTION OF SCRIPTURE.

That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.

(2).IMMEDIATE CONTEXT IN SCRIPTURE.

Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.

(3).SURROUNDING CONTEXT IN THE SCRIPTURE.

Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.

(4).THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.

(5a).BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS.

One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

(6).REPETITION AND REDUNDANCY.

If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.

(7)..AVOID DOCTRINES OF THE UNGODLY.

Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(8).THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).

—trutherator

English and Bible Versions: God is Not the Author of Confusion

April 26, 2010

One interesting bit is from a Shakespeare web site:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespearelanguage.html
where we find this little paragraph:

“.. By about 1450, Middle English was replaced with Early Modern English, the language of Shakespeare, which is almost identical to contemporary English….”

…thus presenting us with another voice that says we do not need a proliferation of “versions” today.

I suspect though that just like our English was stabilized by the universal and daily use of “The Holy Bible” over centuries, so the language of the Bible in Hebrew stabilized that language.

It is indisputable that the quick adaptation of the KJB in the 17th century and its ubiquitous use throughout the English-speaking world has kept the language itself stable through time and across geographies.

Somebody wrote once in debate on this:

“> Languages change, and translators are fallible.”

Just translators? How about prophets, kings, fugitive Egyptian princes, shepherd boys, beloved physicians, converted Pharisees, tax collectors, and fishermen, and the rest of the common folk who God used to put quill to canvas?

He wasn’t sure what my point was, so I clarified:

“Okay, spelled out, those are only a partial list of all the fallible people who put to paper the first-draft and the final editions of the “original autographs” in the Bible that we all agree was THE INERRANT word of God at that time.”

So the argument against a “translation” that has proven itself against all comers, including spurious criticisms that Jesus warned us against in Matthew 23:24. The Pharisees had traditions of men for making the word of God of none effect, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel when it came to “interpreting” it, but now, since knowledge has increased and evil men wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, we have better stuff! We have “translations”!

God is not limited to “original” languages, and he proved it in Acts 2. He did it again in 1611.

I believe in translating it, but if they’re doing the “dynamic translation” thing instead of the “formal translation” thing then they are off track and missing the mark of the highest calling of God.

Like taking the phrase “white as snow” and making it “white as wool”? That’s taking away from and adding to, that’s not translating!

If we encounter a new word in a book, we can just look it up in a dictionary or consider the context. If a translator ahs trouble finding a suitable word, then just use the original word, a transliteration, or better yet, a word borrowed from English, the indisputable de-facto international language today.

We have thousands of imported words in English, why rob those who speak other languages of the same blessings?

Better than ‘dynamic’ translations would even be a direct translation of the KJB!

>What Acts 2 proves is that God is perfectly able and willing where appropriate to put his word in any languages he so pleases to do, and he is not limited by the wise pontificating of Pharisee school graduates indoctrinated way beyond their faith in his promises to preserve his word.

He has limited himself to preserving his word without confusion. “God is not the author of confusion”.

Not only “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and we can see the fruits of disbelief in the modern versions. For example, he did not produce two “original” Old Testaments in Hebrew, just one. The other one is not.

So Acts 2 shows is that he is NOT the author of confusion. To drive home the point, when it comes to getting the word of God into tongues, Paul wrote I Corinthians 12, speaking directly about the gift of tongues that we read about in Acts 2.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Alright class, pop quiz: How many do the “interpret” thing?

All of the complaints from modern version advocates about the English of the KJB, ALL of them, apply TEN TIMES MORE to Koine Greek and Solomon’s Hebrew. Those languages are DEAD, they are MUCH older than English.

–trutherator