I respectfully and strongly disagree with this statement.

Have you studied Greek in college, Julius?

Do you know that you need not use any of those authors that you've listed? I'm well aware of Kittel's background. Does that mean we throw out Greek exegesis?
Are you suggesting that we not even use a Strong's or others that are not on your bad list?
Are you suggesting that none of us should know Greek definitions or grammar?
You can read your KJV, but if you read the one that is numbered to the Strong's, you may get a true hunger to study for a much deeper understanding. And if you learn Greek grammar - you may be able to go deeper still.
He made certain that we have that language, to prove 'His' points. Finding a few authors of lexicons that we can't go by is no excuse to fault anyone or try to dissuade them from learning His Word in the language He wanted it written in, for a very important reason.
Your arguments against Greek exegesis are contrary to 'His' sole purpose for choosing that language for His New Covenent.

Hi Jesus is God,
Do you have an answer to the questions that I asked,Thanks Staff

Yes, I do know some Greek.

I don't want to hijack staff's thread, but you need to know what you are talking about when using these other sources. And if you can't answer staff's questions it is disingenuous to say, he doesn't understand doctrine because he doesn't know the greek. The KJV and the Holy Spirit (ed) is all he needs.

Let' briefly take a look at some more.

Vine's definitions or text is from the Revised Version of 1881 and it underlying Westcott-Hort Greek text. Not the Textus-Receptus text.

Vine's definitions are the very words used in new vesion. Vine's also follows corrupt lexicons such as Gesenius, Thayer and the Egyptian rubbish of Moulton and Milligan.

I can go in detail but again won't hijack this thread.

Vine's use of our Revised version (R.V.) and its corrupt Greek text sometimes skews his theology. His essay on "the blood" is heresy.

It appears at times that Vine cannot read Greek and does not know the differences between his corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament and the pure Textus Receptus. Note the following example. Vine states that:

"workers at home, - this R.V. rendering represents the word oikouros, found in the most authentic manuscripts" (The collected writings of W.E. Vine).

From that his readers are meant to gather that:

"oikouros" is the word underlying the R.V. rendering "workers at home" and the manuscripts underlying the R.V. Greek text use the word "oikouros".

He is wrong about the meaning of the word and he is wrong about the Greek word in the text.

The facts are that the Greek word underlying the recommended R.V. translation (and all corrupt Greek texts including the UBS and Nestle-Aland) oikourgos. Notice the extra "g"? The word oikourgos (not oikouros) means "workers at home".

The first root oikos, means "home" and begins both words. The second half of these words contains two completely different words, although they appear similar except for a gamma (g). The ending of the R.V. Greek word, oikourgos, comes from the Greek word "ergon" meaning "work." You may have seen the phrase ergonomic design, that is, designed for work. The KJV translates the pure Greek text which has oikouros. It ends with the word ouros, meaning "KEEPER." Hence the KJV has "keepers at home" and Vine's R.V. and new versions have "workers at home".

Vine is neither and expert in Greek nor in the Greek textual variants. Throw his books out.

Vine's text continually promotes "works." In Titus 2:5 it cracks the whip with a guilt trip over disable and elderly ladies. It charges ALL women to be "workers at home." He does not tell his unsuspecting reader that the majority of the Greek manuscripts have oikouros, which is perfectly rendered by the KJV as, "Keepers at home." The KJV word encompasses all women and also includes all of the spiritual senses that are involved in KEEPING A HOME. Being "keepers at home" is possible for all women. Working at home is not always possible for the aged and disabled.

When Vine gives a word's "meaning," he is defining the Greek word in the Westcott-Hort text, not the Textus Receptus.

In Col 4:13 he says "toil, but it is "zeal". The word is zelos not ponos as he uses.

Vine uses the corrupt Greek text again to define "king of saints" (hagion) which he says comes from "inferior MSS". he defines it under the "AGE" according to the corrupt Greek texts followed by the R.V. which say "King of ages". Rev 15:3

The word "saints" has been completely omitted from the new TNIV so that only dead Catholics can be called "saints", now.

Vine "corrects" the KJV "alms" (eleemosune) with his corrupt Greek (dikaiosune) which the R.V. translated righteousness).

Vine's "...are ye not men?" gives a hearty compliment! The KJV's "...are ye not carnal" is a reality check!! Vine pretends, "The best texts have anthropoi, "men" here. The A.V. "carnal" translates the manuscripts which have "sarkikoi".

The KJV's "not being mixed with faith" is falsely criticized by Vine in favour of "they were not united", which he pretends is used in his manuscripts which have the plural of the participle.

There is so much more it boggles the mind.

In Acts he recommends the use of the R.V.'s word "bishop", instead of the KJV's "overseer". This is strange since "overseer" is a direct translation f epi (over) skopeo (see).

Now, I have already taken too much room in this thread, as there is much more to Vine and I would like to tell you something about Strong's too.

Strong was a member of the Westcott and Hort Revised Version Committee of 1881 and worked in masterminding that corrupt version.

Strong was also a member of the American Standard Version Committee, finally published in 1901. It said that Jesus Christ was a creature not the Creator.

Strong's Greek text is not always that which underlies the KJV. Strong's various definitions may not give anywhere near a literal translation of the Greek.

Some of the latest editions of Strong's Concordance are not even Strong's original. In the Greek and Hebrew lexicons in the back section, they contain even more corrupt definitions from new version editors. In the main body of the concordance, which originally was correct, new editions omit important KJB usages of the word "Jesus" in order to match corrupt new versions.

Strong's concordance has been elevated to the position of the 4th member of the Trinity by many. His corrupt Greek and Hebrew definitions pepper today's preaching, as if his lexicon was the final and 67th book of the Bible. His liberal definitions are used as quick and weak patches to fill a void in sermons. The space would be better filled by a laborious looking up of all the Bible's usages of a word.

Are there any TOTALLY reliable Greek and Hebrew lexicons or dictionaries? NO

Man-made lexicons and critical editions are not an authority above the Holy Bible.

What is the result of the use of Greek and Hebrew study tools?

Elevate the English words in lexicons by unsaved liberals above the English words in our Holy Bible.

Demote the words of the Holy Bible resulting in a loss of confidence in it.

Establish an elevated priest-class of a few Greek and Hebrew scholars and incite a rebellious anarchism in the pews where "everyman's" own interpretation, taken from stacks of software, supersedes that in the Holy Bible.

Give false doctrines and the heresies of history past a voice (hell dissolved, women deacons, the end of the "world" updated to the end of the "age", Jesus reduced to a servant not a Son, et al).

Bring Christians in contact with pagan and secular interpretations, thoughts, views, heresies and translations.

Provide a dangerous shortcut which leads Christians to believe that understanding the Bible is a linguistic feat, not a time when they meet with God as they "labour in the word" (1 Tim 5:17). "Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another..." (Col 3:16). This has been replaced by solitary surfing in dangerous software, books and on the web.

Leads to time spent away from the Holy Bible.

Isn't it strange that the only current weak and carnal Laodicean-type church is the one that has had wide access to Greek and Hebrew study tools (Rev 3:14)?

Could it be they are weak for this very reason? The martyrs throughout history loved the word of God and actually died rather than re-define it.

Staff, thank you for any grace you can extend to me. I want people to know that they don't have to be intimidated or shut down by the "scholars" and that their KJV is very reliable.

Julius

An old Cherokee told his grandson, "My son, there's a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is Evil. It's anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies, and ego. The other is Good. It's joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy, and truth." The grandson thought about it and asked his grandfather, "Which wolf wins?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed.

_________________
Bill

Hi Staff, I'm trying to give an answer and did on the bottom of page 1.
To your last question - not all "deaf or dumb" folks have those disabilities due to demons.


Julius, I don't use the Vine's and posted here before against it.

No one is trying to "intimidate or shut down" anyone, Julius. That's getting a bit far fetched now.
Also not saying that we all must know Greek Grammar, but defintions of the Greek words from the TR is very helpful in determining the meaning of a passage.

I've never seen anyone come against that as you have.
With the Greek, you learn the language by the parts of the words themselves. It's not impossible to get an accurate definition. I don't know where you are coming up with that because for every belief that you have, that you've learned since being in the Church, someone went into the Greek to come up with that belief - if you go back far enough into the history of church doctrines.
How was even the KJV written and how did they come up with the meanings of the words that you're reading if not from Some Source of Greek translation.
Very strange argument and one I've never heard. Not understandable nor qualified stance, seeing that you're reading a version that was translated from the T.R..



Well, back to demons - in these last days - we are certainly seeing them pull down sound doctrine, and tearing down the old foundations of the Church with "arguments":
the word that Paul used that the KJV translated as "strongholds" of a mind that's holding onto stubborn but unscriptural beliefs and thoughts.
"Sound doctrine" is now a word that we must fear to use, though quoting those words From His Word, and this is just one more sign that we Are indeed living in the last days, as Paul spoke so much of - with doctrines of demons, the apostasy from His truth, the falling away, the fall in morality, etc..
How one will get through these last days is determined by what they believe.

Strong's does not get off the hook that easily, either. I started going into Strong's and there is much to say about it and many examples to give. But, in deference to staff, as I said before I don't want to hijack his thread. You can start a new thread if you would like to delve into this. If I start it then it will appear that I have an agenda and since this website seems to be antagonistic against the KJV and the Textus Receptus the thread will probably be attacked quite swiftly so all I can say is do some research into Strong's source of information.

The fact that you are asking "how was the KJV written", shows that you don't really understand this issue.

Sorry and thanks again for your patience and grace, staff. I won't take the discussion off topic again.

Julius

How does one settle on a certain "doctrine" - in this case, the discussion is "demonology"?

To go to the foundation of where and how a "doctrine" is formed, one should know where it came from and what words in the TR are used and their definitions.
So none of what has been brought forth is "off topic".

2Ti 4:3 ForG1063 the timeG2540 will comeG2071 whenG3753 they will notG3756 endureG430 soundG5198 doctrine;G1319 butG235 afterG2596 their ownG2398 lustsG1939 shall they heapG2002 to themselvesG1438 teachers,G1320 having itchingG2833 ears;G189
2Ti 4:4 AndG2532 they shall turn awayG654 their earsG189 fromG575 (G3303) theG3588 truth,G225 andG1161 shall be turnedG1624 untoG1909 fables.G3454


Seeing that I prefer the KJV and because the TR was used - my question does still apply, Julius. How did they translate the Greek to come up with their version of the N.T. - from where our foundational doctrines have been formed.

That's not off topic in the least, as the verses above, just for one, set the tone of the last days when doctrines will be turned on their head by people using 'whatever' definition of words that they 'choose' [ the definition of heresy is "to choose for oneself"] -- obviously, in 'these' days.

To be concerned for what others believe in 'these' days and where they get their beliefs from, does not make one a "wolf" -- but something that I expect out of a good shepherd of His Sheep. A man of GOD who cares what his Father's Sheep graze upon and eat to keep them healthy.

He Loves His Sheep.

Like I said, start a new thread Jesus-is-God and I will answer your question. I think this is off topic and I have no problem answering your question in how KJV translators came up with the NT. It is not a short answer.

Yes, He loves His Sheep,
Julius

I have no questions for you, Julius.

"Foundational" doctrines are those that the Church have held for near 2000 yrs. They are not currupt - those of this new 'church' era are and that's the point of why I brought up the need for men to study and teach exegetically.

"Demonology" is a "doctrine of the Church" and has been corrupted since the Apostle's penned the N.T. and the earliest of the Early Church Fathers that were their contemporaries wrote "against heresies", etc. prior to approx 300 AD.

An inaccurate, non-Biblical Demonology can do great damage to the young in Christ or the Biblically illiterate and the Witness to the world of what True Christianity does for a soul.


Sound doctrine is thrown in the steets in these days and by that I mean the "foundational doctrines" held by the early Church.
I pray that GOD would raise up more men that will get the burden for exegetical, foundational teaching of His Word and at this moment, mainly on this topic of demonology.
Amen.