The NKJV

[yomotalking]

[Trust & Obey]

Obviously brandplucked is using the Textus Receptus.  If you do not...you will never agree with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Spoudazo comes from the TR. He is simply mistaken on the meaning of the word.

It would be like every time you read the word "gay" in the KJV you automatically understand it to mean "homosexual."

"Gay" did not mean that back then... just as "study" did not mean what it does today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Trust and Obey, the Greek word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is clearly "to study" and this with the modern sense. By the way, the word spoudazo is not just found in the TR; it is in all texts.

Here is a bit more on this word and the correct CONTEXTUAL meaning as found in the King James Bible.

2 Timothy 2:15 "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

So even if you thought that "study" should be "be diligent", what are you to be diligent in? - the answer is in the verse - "rightly dividing the word of truth". That's why contextually it makes perfect sense to translate as "study".

Not only does the KJB render this word as 'study' but so also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Green's interlinear and his Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century Version, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Even the Italian Diodati has 'study' spelled 'studiati'

The word is spoudazo in Greek and I have a modern Greek dictionary that has nothing to do with the Bible at all. It is like a Spanish/English- English/Spanish dictionary you buy in the stores.

If you look up spoudazo it says "to study". Also the well known lexicon of Liddell & Scott on page 1630 lists one of the meanings of spoudazo as 'to study'. The noun form means 'study' and another noun form spoudastees means 'a student'.

To me the difference is:

1. new versions: "do your best" ===> "present yourself to God as one approved"

2. KJV: "study" ===> "approved unto God"

In the new versions it almost rings of Bible study vs. good works dichotomy -

Perhaps the reason the Bible Relativists are enamored with "do your best" - "work hard" etc is due to a fundamental difference in one's appoach to God's Words -

The Bible Relativist - Bible Corrector approach:

Presented with a Bible text, the Bible corrector approach is to gear up for a rigorous Bible reconstruction project, since they have no Bible they can trust completely they must work hard, sweat nails to ferret out every greek nuance, every learned scholar's conjecture - they first consult 50 different versions, Cardinal martini, Von Soden, then consult Thayer, Kittel, Driver, etc. if needs be look for some fragment from an Egyptian garbage dump, Ugaritic tablet, Dead Sea scroll etc. - anything that could aid the never ending search for what possibly God may have maybe kinda said so as to reach a tentative speculation on the meaning to the text, pending Cardinal Martini's next Nestle-UBS text of course. Much like Cain's sacrifice in Genesis they can proudly proclaim to God, "Look at what I've done with your Words!"

In contrast - the Bible Believer is blessed to have God's inerrant preserved words in the King James Bible and they study God's words. The Bible Believer praises God that He has providentially preserved His words so we can read them today in the KJB.

So the modern versions that change this word here to "be diligent" or

"do your best" or whatever, have neglected the context of the verse and made a change only for the sake of changing things to get their copyrights and make money.

Will Kinney

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's another example that demonstrates that the word "study" in the KJV era did not mean only to "read and learn.

1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

1Th 4:12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Is that passage saying to read lots of books on how to be quiet? Or, is it saying to be diligent to be quiet? Obvioulsy, it is the latter.

Now, the Greek word here is notspoudazo... that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that the English word "study" meant something different then than it does today as is demonstrated by this passage.

[Guest brandplucked]

Here's another example that demonstrates that the word "study" in the KJV era did not mean only to "read and learn.

1Th 4:11  And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

1Th 4:12  That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Is that passage saying to read lots of books on how to be quiet? Or, is it saying to be diligent to be quiet? Obvioulsy, it is the latter.

Now, the Greek word here is notspoudazo... that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that the English word "study" meant something different then than it does today as is demonstrated by this passage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Trust and Obey, you are correct in one sense but not in another. The word "study" meant and means today BOTH. There are many words in the KJB and in the modern versions as well, that have multiple meanings. The KJB uses the word "to let" in three different ways. It also uses the word "suffer" in two different ways, and niether use is archaic.

Take most common words in the English language, and they all have several very different meanings depending on the context. Words like "run", "hit", book or cow all have multiple meanings. How about "want"? Look even at the nkjv, niv, nasb for how this word is used.

What you failed to address is that it was not only "in the KJB era" that "to study" meant to be diligent in something, but there are several modern versions that still use the word "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15.

Here is what I previously posted: Not only does the KJB render this word as 'study' but so also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Green's interlinear and his Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century Version, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Even the Italian Diodati has 'study' spelled 'studiati'

The word is spoudazo in Greek and I have a modern Greek dictionary that has nothing to do with the Bible at all. It is like a Spanish/English- English/Spanish dictionary you buy in the stores.

If you look up spoudazo it says "to study". Also the well known lexicon of Liddell & Scott on page 1630 lists one of the meanings of spoudazo as 'to study'. The noun form means 'study' and another noun form spoudastees means 'a student'.

The word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is very definitely "to study" as it is used today.

Will K

[Guest brandplucked]

God is obviously in control of the world by the fact that it hasn't been destroyed. God did give satan some license to cause destruction. My point is that if God wants to speak to a believer , He can do it through any translation He chooses.

By your way of thinking, there would be a large group of people who think they are christians but have never read the Word.

So I will give you a rasberry on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Gerioke, thanks for attempting an answer. I agree with you that God is in control of this world. However, the NIV actually teaches that the whole world is under the control of the Evil One. All you need is one false doctrine in one place, and it is proof you have a false bible.

God cannot and will not use false doctrine to reach His people, but someone else will.

God or Satan?

Who is in control of the world? Is it God or Satan? Jesus Christ said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Mattthew 28:18. The Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:13 ends with :"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen." This phrase is in brackets in the NASB and removed in the NIV, RSV and ESV. Jesus either said it or he didn't; they can't all be right.

In Ephesians 1:20-22 it is said of Christ that God "raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet."

Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us three times that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." 2 Chronicles 20:6 affirms: "O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?"

God is the sovereign ruler and controller of this world, as well as the entire universe. There is only one King, and Satan is not the king, the controller, or the ruler of this world - at least according to the true Holy Bible - the King James Bible of 1611 - which is pure in all its precepts and true in all its doctrines. However such is not the case with a multitude of inferior bible versions on the market today.

Satan is a liar from the beginning. In Luke 4:6, when the devil tempted the Lord Jesus Christ in the wilderness, Satan told Jesus that all the kingdoms of the world were his and that he gave them to whomsoever he would. He lied. He is a liar and the father of it - John 8:44. Satan's statement directly contradicts Daniel 4:17 which says "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will."

Adam Clarke makes these comments regarding the boastful statement of Satan: " Satan, it is true, has said that the kingdoms of the world and their glory are his, and that he gives them to whomsoever he will; Matthew 4:8,9. But has God ever said so? and are we to take this assertion of the boasting devil and father of lies for truth? Certainly not."

But the NIV, NAS, ESV and NKJV have bought Satan's lie and are passing it off onto God's children.

All Greek texts read the same in 1 John 5:19, so it is not a textual variation, but a simple matter of sound and consistent doctrine as opposed to a lie. The Greek texts read: "oidamen oti ek tou qeou esmen kai o kosmoV oloV en tw ponhrw keitai".

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo est

[Trust & Obey]

The word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is very definitely "to study" as it is used today.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And one of them is to "be diligent."

So, neither is the better and neither is the worse.

[Guest brandplucked]

Thankyou.

I'll wait for that big Voice.

But until that Vioce, big or small comes ........(from God, not man) then my NJKV stays close to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Yomo, that is fine, and I agree the "voice" should come from God and not man. However I do have one lingering question to ask. Do you believe the NKJV or any Bible out there in any language is (present tense verb) the inerrant word of God and is 100% true in every instance?

Have you heard from God on this matter, or has He not spoken to you regarding His promises to preserve His words in a book here on this earth?

Will K

[Guest brandplucked]

The word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is very definitely "to study" as it is used today.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And one of them is to "be diligent."

So, neither is the better and neither is the worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Trust and Obey, I thank you for at least acknowledging that the word spoudazo can mean "to study" in the sense we use it today. Other modern versions like Green's MKJV and others too also translate it as to study, and in fact, in modern Greek this is precisely what the word means.

All I was going for was an acknowlegement that the KJB is not in error here (as many allege), and you at least granted this. Of course I believe the King James reading of "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" is the better reading, since this is the only verse in the entire Bible that tells us to study it.

But the central issue remains. Is there an inerrant Bible on this earth in which the true words of God have been providentially preserved, or not? Apparently, most Christians today do not believe in an inerrant Bible, or if they say they do, they either are referring to the non-existent, never seen, and never formed into one Book "originals", or else they use the word "inerrant" to refer to contradictory and textually very diverse, multiple-choice, ballpark approximations, that nobody really believes are infallible, of what God may or may not have said, and nobody can really be sure one way or another.

Do you personally believe The Bible (any Bible in any language) IS NOW the inerrant and complete words of God?

God bless,

Will K

[Trust & Obey]

The word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is very definitely "to study" as it is used today.

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And one of them is to "be diligent."

So, neither is the better and neither is the worse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Trust and Obey, I thank you for at least acknowledging that the word spoudazo can mean "to study" in the sense we use it today. Other modern versions like Green's MKJV and others too also translate it as to study, and in fact, in modern Greek this is precisely what the word means.

All I was going for was an acknowlegement that the KJB is not in error here (as many allege), and you at least granted this. Of course I believe the King James reading of "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" is the better reading, since this is the only verse in the entire Bible that tells us to study it.

But the central issue remains. Is there an inerrant Bible on this earth in which the true words of God have been providentially preserved, or not? Apparently, most Christians today do not believe in an inerrant Bible, or if they say they do, they either are referring to the non-existent, never seen, and never formed into one Book "originals", or else they use the word "inerrant" to refer to contradictory and textually very diverse, multiple-choice, ballpark approximations, that nobody really believes are infallible, of what God may or may not have said, and nobody can really be sure one way or another.

Do you personally believe The Bible (any Bible in any language) IS NOW the inerrant and complete words of God?

God bless,

Will K

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no problem, Will. I will agree that I prefer the "study" translation vs. the "be diligent." But, where I stop is accusing the NKJV of deliberate deception. "Be diligent" is an accurate rendering of the passage and is consistent with other renderings of "spoudazo" throughout the NT. So, I think it is a matter of "good vs. best."

However, I do enjoy this discussion because I am learning more and more about the NKJV and this I will be able to pass on to people.

That said, I do not believe there is an inerrant Bible in any language anywhere. I believe the original manuscripts were divinely inspired. This means that most of the manuscripts we have today are not inspired since they are not the originals. And, doesn't this make sense? How can one point to some obvious copyist errors in certain errors and say they are "inerrant?"

I do not think this position takes away from the authority of the Bible in any way. Nobody questions the accuracy or validity to Homer's Iliad. And, that has much, much, much less less traceability and manuscript evidence as the Bible. What's the difference then? The Bible demands action and change... that's what. Therefore, people will try to attack it.

But, to say that the KJV is the "inerrant Word of God" is incorrect. It was translated by fallible men. Thus, we have stories of the unicorn. We have inconsistent numerical accounts in the OT, and we have the inclusion of the Babylonian celebration of Ishtar (Easter) in the NT.

[pretzelperson]

Brandplucked--

In your opinion is this a true statement?

"God's Word is preserved for us in the King James Bible and although not inspired as the original autographs were, they carry the authority of the original autographs. We can also refer to it as "imputed or derivative inspiration" since the King James Bible carries as much authority as the original manuscripts did. Let me repeat, the difference between preservation and inspiration is, inspiration was when God penned the original manuscripts through the holy men of old and preservation is the keeping of those manuscripts down through time. I hope this clears up the misconception of an "Inspired Translation." The King James Bible is a guided translation of the manuscripts handed down to us which had its birth in the original manuscripts which God gave with appended Divine authority"

[pretzelperson]

Brandplucked:

Is is possible that "the Holy Gost could mix up the tenses of may verbs when relating the same events that occured at the same time.

Edited September 28, 2005 by pretzelperson