Is a woman required to cover her head today?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
"Notice how the text in brackets was not part of the original quote but provided context to help the reader understand what was being discussed." - source

"What are brackets?​

Brackets, [ ], show that text has been added to a quotation. They’re generally used by writers and editors to separate the original wording from any additions." - source

Your false accusation again falls flat
So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?
English Grammar 101 says otherwise. Your ignorance of the use of bracket punctuation is no excuse.
English grammar 001 says a bracketed word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Just look at the New World Translation of the Jehivahs Witness and learn.
That's not the gist of the passage. Also, because you do not discern, you falsely accuse yet again; I never said that "men are not to have a head covering." (neither did Paul)
Paul specifically said men should not cover their heads, you are wrong.
Q: Who is being directed to pray directly to God in that instance? Hint: It isn't the woman...

The whole passage ends with the point: A woman requires spiritual power on her head - not a garment!
Sorry but that is not what god originally inspired to be written. Why should I believe your allegorized reinterpretation over the original inspired word?
I've posted much scripture; you've posted opinion.
I have posted the passage.

You have yet to defend your opinion that "angels" in this passage means the fallen angels (demons) and the Nephilim- that is opoinion without Scriptural evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anchorite

Bombastic

Member
Jun 23, 2026
138
78
28
Red State
isaiah.school
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?
I always find these kinds of comments amusing. I am literate in ancient Hebraic and modern Hebrew.
Some cats get ticked off when editing their KJVs; there are no direct word-for-word translations. Translations require interpretation.
Those guys are ticked off, as they never say much when confronted by the New KJV translations. Of course, the sacred or holy tongue has been buried under the Greek layers and Gentile translations.
To answer your question directly, I don't think G-d needs an editor (direct vs. dynamic translation). Why is it that some learn the original language and others don't? Jesus tore the curtain only to replace the high priest with other translators, interpreters, and priests.
And @Ronald Nolette I am not siding against you, just sharing something that amuses me. I have personally translated the Bible from ancient Hebraic to modern Sephardic Hebrew, and I hate translating my personal works into Pig Latin.
I love what you conveyed; the goal is to understand what the author meant to convey and not the reader. That is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis (people forget to ask who, what, where, and why in the original context). Rock on! And question anybody hiding behind institutionalized credentials. And even those that don't. G-d is no respecter of "persons" or offices; no individual can hide behind them by proxy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ronald Nolette

doctrox

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
1,102
810
113
worldwide
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
So you have to add a word not inspired by God in the original, to help us understand what God was trying to say? Do you think God needs an editor?
Still beating that tired drum?

English grammar 001 says a bracketed word can completely change the meaning of a sentence. Just look at the New World Translation of the Jehivahs Witness and learn.
Rather, learn the meaning of brackets.

Paul specifically said men should not cover their heads, you are wrong.
Your problem remains: You do not discern between physical and spiritual.

Hats protect no one spiritually.

Sorry but that is not what god originally inspired to be written. Why should I believe your allegorized reinterpretation over the original inspired word?
You are unable to process anything that does not endorse your preconceptions. Selah.

You have yet to defend your opinion that "angels" in this passage means the fallen angels (demons) and the Nephilim- that is opoinion without Scriptural evidence.
You have continually avoided the "angels" for lack of an accommodating A.I. "commentary."

It's a no-brainer, as Paul sums by telling us that a woman needs power on her head (not some garment!) because of the angels. If you think that such power is found in a hat, then by all means feel free to pick a pleasant color.

The Magical Mystical Hat (1 Cor. 11)

Paul patiently spends much time in this chapter exposing errors of the church that cause divisions and bring death. The head covering misunderstanding is but one of those errors.

After illustrating what constitutes proper headship, Paul sums by stating a woman needs power on her head because of the angels.

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." (v. 10)

While members of the church Paul is addressing are certainly free to continue to physically wear a hat, it is NOT the power.

power = exousia; it appears over 100 times as:
- power...
- authority...
- jurisdiction...
- strength...
- right...
- liberty...
OVER WHAT? Over the angels. IOW, where there is proper spiritual alignment, there remains an effective spiritual mechanism to deal with those angels.

But because folks don't spiritually discern, they default to arguing over a piece of clothing (or hair length). Paul said he and God's churches have no such custom, so why would we?

As water baptism doesn't save anyone from hell, wearing a hat doesn't protect anyone from malevolent angels.

Ppl who argue for a mere hat are attempting to synthesize the physical with the spiritual. Such spiritualizing results only in harm to the exposed woman.

Rather, this is the takeaway: Husbands, protect/cover your wives - not with some hat but with proper spiritual headship/authority.

Paul goes on to cite further examples where ppl are coming together in the churches for worse and not for better (v. 17 et al), causing divisions and bringing heresies, which result in becoming weak, sickly and dead (v. 30). "And the rest will I set in order when I come" (v. 34).
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Rather, learn the meaning of brackets.
It is the drum worth beating!


Copilot Search Branding


Like
Dislike

Can Adding a Word in Brackets Alter the Meaning of a Sentence?​

Yes — adding a word in brackets can change the meaning of a sentence, depending on what you insert and how it’s used.

Why brackets matter​

Square brackets [ ] are used to indicate that the enclosed words are not part of the original text but are added for clarification, explanation, or integration into your sentence Writing Commons+1. If you insert a word or phrase in brackets without signaling it as an addition, readers may mistakenly think it’s part of the original quote or statement, which can mislead or misrepresent the meaning University of the People.

How meaning can change​

  • Clarification vs. substitution: If you insert a word to replace an undefined pronoun or vague term, it can make the sentence clearer but may subtly shift emphasis. For example:
    “It [driving] imposes a heavy procedural workload…” clarifies “it” as “driving,” so the meaning is now about driving’s cognitive load Writing Commons.
  • Adding detail: If you insert a definition or explanation, you’re expanding the sentence’s scope. For example:
    “[D]riving is not as automatic as one might think; in fact, it imposes a heavy procedural workload [visual and motor demands]…” adds specific demands to the original idea Writing Commons.
  • Changing emphasis or tone: Even a single word in brackets can alter the nuance. For example, adding “[the exam]” to “It took me three hours” changes the focus from an unspecified “it” to a specific subject GRAMMARIST.

When meaning stays the same​

If the bracketed word is purely explanatory and doesn’t change the core proposition, the meaning may remain the same. For example:
“He [Mr. Jones] didn’t sleep well last night.” — the core meaning is unchanged, but the reader now knows who “he” is University of the People.

Key takeaway​

Brackets are a signal that you’ve added something. If you omit them, the reader may interpret the added word as part of the original text, which can distort meaning. Always use [ ] to mark additions so readers know what’s been inserted and how it affects the sentence Writing Commons+2.

from Microsoft co-pilot
 

Bombastic

Member
Jun 23, 2026
138
78
28
Red State
isaiah.school
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
It is the drum worth beating!

Copilot Search Branding

Like
Dislike

Can Adding a Word in Brackets Alter the Meaning of a Sentence?​

Yes — adding a word in brackets can change the meaning of a sentence, depending on what you insert and how it’s used.

Why brackets matter​

Square brackets [ ] are used to indicate that the enclosed words are not part of the original text but are added for clarification, explanation, or integration into your sentence Writing Commons+1. If you insert a word or phrase in brackets without signaling it as an addition, readers may mistakenly think it’s part of the original quote or statement, which can mislead or misrepresent the meaning University of the People.

How meaning can change​

  • Clarification vs. substitution: If you insert a word to replace an undefined pronoun or vague term, it can make the sentence clearer but may subtly shift emphasis. For example:
    “It [driving] imposes a heavy procedural workload…” clarifies “it” as “driving,” so the meaning is now about driving’s cognitive load Writing Commons.
  • Adding detail: If you insert a definition or explanation, you’re expanding the sentence’s scope. For example:
    “[D]riving is not as automatic as one might think; in fact, it imposes a heavy procedural workload [visual and motor demands]…” adds specific demands to the original idea Writing Commons.
  • Changing emphasis or tone: Even a single word in brackets can alter the nuance. For example, adding “[the exam]” to “It took me three hours” changes the focus from an unspecified “it” to a specific subject GRAMMARIST.

When meaning stays the same​

If the bracketed word is purely explanatory and doesn’t change the core proposition, the meaning may remain the same. For example:
“He [Mr. Jones] didn’t sleep well last night.” — the core meaning is unchanged, but the reader now knows who “he” is University of the People.

Key takeaway​

Brackets are a signal that you’ve added something. If you omit them, the reader may interpret the added word as part of the original text, which can distort meaning. Always use [ ] to mark additions so readers know what’s been inserted and how it affects the sentence Writing Commons+2.

from Microsoft co-pilot
Come on, fellas, admit it, between us, a group of men, we love beating the dead horse!

beating-dead.gif

are-you-not-entertained-maximus.gif

200.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctrox

Bombastic

Member
Jun 23, 2026
138
78
28
Red State
isaiah.school
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Sorry, but his brackets altered teh meaning of the passage in Scripture. It did not clarify, but altered
Point taken, even more so that you recognized it.
What if new translations began using that methodology rather than a numerical reference for a footnote?
How many people actually scroll down to the bottom of the page and read every footnote from the translation teams?
Those footnotes, if done by the original translation team, indicate the interpretation used for translation.
I remember looking up the credentials for the ESV team; I was shocked that only one person had any credentials in English.
Generally, a native speaker in English is considered credible. It might be amusing if somebody that spoke Ebonics was added to the translator teams. Why are there no dialects outside Elizabethan English? Shouldn't we welcome those Cajuns?
@Ronald Nolette I don't believe @doctrox was trying to pull a fast one, obviously, because he used brackets, a different methodology than references for footnotes, or like what most people here do, they write between the verses or lines in the margins.
 
Last edited:

doctrox

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
1,102
810
113
worldwide
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Brackets are a signal that you’ve added something....
duhhh

Always use [ ] to mark additions so readers know what’s been inserted
...which is precisely what I have done, but you still don't get it.

I don't believe @doctrox was trying to pull a fast one, obviously, because he used brackets, a different methodology than references for footnotes, or like what most people here do, they write between the verses or lines in the margins.
Indeed. But all is fair to the accuser of the brethren.

Propaganda Techniques

#12. Simplification (Stereotyping)


Reduces complex issues or entire groups of people into simple, oversimplified, and often inaccurate stereotypes. It turns a nuanced problem into a basic "us versus them" narrative.

Rather, this is the takeaway: Husbands, protect/cover your wives - not with some hat but with proper spiritual headship/authority.
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Point taken, even more so that you recognized it.
What if new translations began using that methodology rather than a numerical reference for a footnote?
How many people actually scroll down to the bottom of the page and read every footnote from the translation teams?
Those footnotes, if done by the original translation team, indicate the interpretation used for translation.
I remember looking up the credentials for the ESV team; I was shocked that only one person had any credentials in English.
Generally, a native speaker in English is considered credible. It might be amusing if somebody that spoke Ebonics was added to the translator teams. Why are there no dialects outside Elizabethan English? Shouldn't we welcome those Cajuns?
@Ronald Nolette I don't believe @doctrox was trying to pull a fast one, obviously, because he used brackets, a different methodology than references for footnotes, or like what most people here do, they write between the verses or lines in the margins.
I do believe he was pulling a fast one. MOst people are not that versed in how brackets are used. He did not clarify the sentence, he altered it by adding the bracketed word.

I prefer footnotes and leaving the original as literal as possible recognizing the changes in grammar with differing languages.

I want translators well versed in Hebrew/Greek/English in any combo of them. The impact of endings in Greek and grammar is Hebrew is vital if one is to correctly translate from the ancient languages to English
 

doctrox

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
1,102
810
113
worldwide
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
MOst people are not that versed in how brackets are used.
Hopefully, you now are.

@Ronald Nolette I don't believe @doctrox was trying to pull a fast one, obviously, because he used brackets, a different methodology than references for footnotes, or like what most people here do, they write between the verses or lines in the margins.
Rules of grammar. We can all learn more of them.

I prefer footnotes and leaving the original as literal as possible...
footnote: a note of reference, explanation, or comment usually placed below the text on a printed page - Webster's

Note that such citation or reference in an article usually has two parts. In the first part, each section of text that is either based on, or quoted from, an outside source is marked as such with an inline citation. This is usually displayed as a superscript footnote number within the body of the text. By your estimation, such would qualify as "adding to the text" as per the infamous Scofield Reference Bible, where the study notes are written with an air of absolute and infallible authority, which discourages independent critical thinking and leads readers to mistake editorial commentary for biblical text.

He did not clarify the sentence, he altered it by adding the bracketed word.
Vis-à-vis, 'Scofield did not clarify the sentence, he altered it by adding a superscript to a footnote.'

I want translators...
Mistake #1.

I want translators well versed in Hebrew/Greek/English in any combo of them.
Mistake #2. The word of God is not a smorgasbord. Yes, it was written in Greek - for Greek readers. But you're not Greek, and this isn't Greece, and Greek is not the common language, even as God has preserved his words for us forever. God is finished with "Hebrew/Greek/English in any combo of them."

Any nine-year-old girl in Greece knows Greek better than "translators" or wannabee 'scholars' in these forums; the Greek Orthodox Church has had the 'so-called' advantage of an intimate knowledge of, not only the Greek language, but also the traditional Greek text of the Bible. Yet they show no spiritual fruit. The secret is not 'Greek,' but 'meek' (Psa. 25:9)

The impact of endings in Greek and grammar is Hebrew is vital if one is to correctly translate from the ancient languages to English
Rather,

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:14-15)

Notice that even a child understands the holy scriptures -- no middlemen wanna-be ‘scholars’ required!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16)

Notice that it is God who gives scripture -- not man. Man does not even feature in this verse.

Notice that the purpose of God, giving to man, God’s inspired scripture is so “that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

If you speak English, then simply read the English bible that God has provided you. One should just read the English in which it is written - i.e. the inspired words of God in the common language of the day and not some foregone foreign manuscript of times past resurrected locally in an attempt to justify an unwanted and undiscerning perspective.

God's pattern has always been the same: He gives the COMMON man the COMMON bible in the COMMON language of the day, to do one thing -- evangelize the world. God has magnified his word above all his name (Psalm 138:2).
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Mistake #2. The word of God is not a smorgasbord. Yes, it was written in Greek - for Greek readers. But you're not Greek, and this isn't Greece, and Greek is not the common language, even as God has preserved his words for us forever. God is finished with "Hebrew/Greek/English in any combo of them."

Any nine-year-old girl in Greece knows Greek better than "translators" or wannabee 'scholars' in these forums; the Greek Orthodox Church has had the 'so-called' advantage of an intimate knowledge of, not only the Greek language, but also the traditional Greek text of the Bible. Yet they show no spiritual fruit. The secret is not 'Greek,' but 'meek' (Psa. 25:9)
Modern Greek yes, ancient Koine Greek, not so much.

And we do well to become versed in the biblical languages, translations are always imperfect.

The best English translation of the Greek NT is Kittles 10 volume Greek New Testament

For the OT it is Keil and Delitczh commentary on the Hebrew OT. 12 volumes
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:14-15)

Notice that even a child understands the holy scriptures -- no middlemen wanna-be ‘scholars’ required!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim. 3:16)

Notice that it is God who gives scripture -- not man. Man does not even feature in this verse.
Yes that is true, but going from one language to another leaves things wanting. I can read English Scripture and become well versed in doctrine. but many things I will be ignorant because of linguistic differences, cultural differences and idiomatic use of language and metaphors.

Sorry, but a serious biblical student should havel anguage tools in this day and age of computers to help them understand better.

If I was choosing a doctor, I would want one who was very well studied over one who simply got his MD.

When choosing to care for my soul, I want as many advantages asd I can get.
 

doctrox

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
1,102
810
113
worldwide
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Modern Greek yes, ancient Koine Greek, not so much.

And we do well to become versed in the biblical languages, translations are always imperfect.
It's men who are "always imperfect" - not God's word. It's men who will always lead you astray if you rather trust them. For example:
The best English translation of the Greek NT is Kittles 10 volume Greek New Testament
"The best"??? Kittel's trial, conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek. Kittel was Hitler's propaganda high priest.

For the OT it is Keil and Delitczh commentary on the Hebrew OT. 12 volumes
Don't get me started on those two commentators.

Yes that is true, but going from one language to another leaves things wanting.
Of course! We sinners are always "wanting." But true satisfaction never comes from another "language."

I can read English Scripture and become well versed in doctrine. but many things I will be ignorant because of...
...not because of a lack of a library, but because of a lack of knee pads.
.
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
"The best"??? Kittel's trial, conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek. Kittel was Hitler's propaganda high priest.
Wrong! Goebells was propoganda chief. and where do you fet this info ? Please present the evidence that the Greek translator was also a nazi.
It's men who are "always imperfect" - not God's word. It's men who will always lead you astray if you rather trust them. For example:
And yet you are trusting men every time you open and read an English translation. It was men who went from the original languages to the enormous languafges of the bible today.
Don't get me started on those two commentators.
I want to. what are your charges? So far your contempt for Kittel and Keil and Delitzch are empty accusations without empirical evidence. That is immaturity and arrogance
Of course! We sinners are always "wanting." But true satisfaction never comes from another "language."

Well God created language for us to communicate. So why don't we just dump teh english bibles and stick with the original languages then? Like you said true satisfaction never comes from another language and as far as the Bible goes, English is another language.
..not because of a lack of a library, but because of a lack of knee pads.
Stupid statement, spoken with extreme ignorance. You know little to nothing of me and my prayer habits. If you did you would not sound so much like an agent fo the enemy.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
"The best"??? Kittel's trial, conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek. Kittel was Hitler's propaganda high priest.
He was a nazi. So weren't many other real Christians.

He was antisemite. But so wasn't and so is many parts of the church today! Shallwe reject all of them as well.

There is no evidence he took part in the holocaust! If you wish to condemn him by association, then you must also condemn many of the born again churches as well as America, England and France. They all knoew what was going on and did nothing to end it.

I am not supporting his antisemitism, nor his membership in the nazi party, but you use to broad a brush to promote your animosity.

Bring evidence that Kittel and Keil and Delitzch are not top notch linguistic scholars and believerss. then you must show why the super majority of the biblebelieivng body of Christ is wrong and you are so right.
 

doctrox

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2018
1,102
810
113
worldwide
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Wrong! Goebells was propoganda chief. and where do you fet this info ? Please present the evidence that the Greek translator was also a nazi.
Yes, it was "Goebells [sic]" who was "propoganda [sic] chief." I stand corrected on that. The gist remains: Kittel's conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek.

And yet you are trusting men every time you open and read an English translation.
I trust no men. I trust God meant it when he said he has preserved his inspired word forever.

It was men who went from the original languages to the enormous languafges of the bible today.
The survival of ‘the’ original, for example, Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.

And, of course, you're unable to tell us which “original Greek." Is it Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener’s, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle’s-Aland (If so which edition between 1 and 26? which printing of the 26th?), USB-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 47?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators?

It's never been about any "translation" per se. But if wannabe scholars could shift their burden from God's "inspired," "pure" and "preserved" word to man's intellect, then they could proceed to build their ivory towers.

The idea of correcting the Bible, using a Greek dictionary or a Greek reference work, denies the doctrine of the pure preservation of scriptures. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (emphasis mine). God promised to preserve his word in a pure form. He promised to preserve those words for us, and so the Holy Bible (KJV) is still pure and it is still inspired, according to Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV).

We know the original paper is long gone. In Jeremiah 51:63, God commanded Jeremiah to throw his "originals" in the river. Therefore, it is evident that God is not concerned with preserving "the originals." The promise of pure and perfect preservation extends to every word, not to the paper upon which they were written.

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That is a very, very powerful God. But if God says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35) — what great care and power he must extend to those words.

Correcting the “word of God” with the words of men (Greek dictionaries) brings dishonor to our heavenly Father and his authority. Small wonder God’s children do not “tremble at his word” (Isa. 66:5). His bride continually corrects him in their presence with “a better reading would be...” or “the word should have been translated....” The Berean call was to “search the scriptures daily,” not to correct them. When the Bible refers to “scriptures,” as it does here in Acts 17:11, the reference is to copies, not "original" manuscripts. Consider 2 Timothy 3:15, “…from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures.” Neither Timothy, nor the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), who also read “the scriptures,” had the eight hundred year old "original" copy of the book of Isaiah.

If “the word” is in a Greek text only, then only the Greek-speaking churches could “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and only those fluent in Greek could be “born again by the word.” Acts 2:6 says, “[E]very man heard them speak in his own language.” I do not think that God is in the business of deceiving house-wives who do not have access to a library of Greek reference books. (First Corinthians 6:4 reminds us to “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.”) We can have confidence that “every word” in the King James Bible is the pure word of God.

Men such as Wycliffe and Coverdale, whom God entrusted to participate in the preservation of the scriptures, had a much higher view of our English Bibles than do today’s carnal ‘professors.’ Doubting Thomases, who must see the print on the "originals", in their hands, call it ‘heresy’ to believe that God is powerful enough and cares enough about us to make certain that simple Christians can hold in their hands the inspired words of God. Both Coverdale and Wycliffe believed that the English Bible was just as inspired of the Holy Ghost as the "originals."

Wycliffe said,

“The clergy cry aloud that it is heresy to speak of the Holy Scriptures in English, and so they would condemn the Holy Ghost, who gave tongues to the Apostles of Christ to speak the word of God in all languages under heaven” (John Wycliffe, Speculum Secularium Dominorum, Opera Minora, London: Wycliffe Society, John Loserth, editor, 1913, p. 74, as cited in Bill Bradley, Purified Seven Times, Claysburg, PA: Revival Fires Publishing, 1998, p. 11).

Coverdale told critics,

“No, the Holy Ghost is as much the author of it in Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, and English, as in Latin” (W. Kenneth Connolly, The Indestructible Book, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996, p. 148).

The Bible states that it is alive! It is the very voice of God, speaking to each person. First Peter writes of “the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (1 Peter 1:23). The Bible is not the words of the Moses, Matthew, Paul, Peter, or the KJV translators; Paul said, “[W]hen ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thes. 2:13). The Bible refers to itself as the word (and words) of God.

And, as always, the uninformed hackneyed attempts to discredit follow like tails on a kite.

Even a child understands the holy scriptures -- no middlemen wanna-be ‘scholars’ required! (2 Tim 3:14)

You know little to nothing of me and my prayer habits. If you did you would not sound so much like an agent fo the enemy.
We have your postings here to determine your "habits" for ourselves.

I want translators well versed in...
You shall have them.
 
Last edited:

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
16,809
4,911
113
71
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Yes, it was "Goebells [sic]" who was "propoganda [sic] chief." I stand corrected on that. The gist remains: Kittel's conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population is a harsh fact, hidden to those pridefully seeking 'hidden' meaning in the Greek.
Sory but history proves you wrong. He did not collaborate with the Nazis in the holocaust. There is no hidden meaning in Greek. You seek to find hidden meanings in a translation of the original.
I trust no men. I trust God meant it when he said he has preserved his inspired word forever.
Define that specifically. Is it Hebrew and Greek? Spanish? Russian? Slovakian? German?
The survival of ‘the’ original, for example, Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.

And, of course, you're unable to tell us which “original Greek." Is it Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener’s, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle’s-Aland (If so which edition between 1 and 26? which printing of the 26th?), USB-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 47?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators?

It's never been about any "translation" per se. But if wannabe scholars could shift their burden from God's "inspired," "pure" and "preserved" word to man's intellect, then they could proceed to build their ivory towers.
And you cannot point to an English translation which is the preserved forever word of god.

I took courses on Greek textual studies. I can honestly remove many of those names. And of course do not forget we would have no English translations without the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. But if you wish to know, the entire New Testament can be reconstructed without an NT just by the writings of the ante nicene fathers. No we have a very sure word of god and none of these translators have done violence to the doctrines.
Correcting the “word of God” with the words of men (Greek dictionaries) brings dishonor to our heavenly Father and his authority. Small wonder God’s children do not “tremble at his word” (Isa. 66:5). His bride continually corrects him in their presence with “a better reading would be...” or “the word should have been translated....” The Berean call was to “search the scriptures daily,” not to correct them. When the Bible refers to “scriptures,” as it does here in Acts 17:11, the reference is to copies, not "original" manuscripts. Consider 2 Timothy 3:15, “…from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures.” Neither Timothy, nor the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), who also read “the scriptures,” had the eight hundred year old "original" copy of the book of Isaiah.
So how do you trust a word from god if not from the preserved writings? The hairs on the back of your neck standing up?
The idea of correcting the Bible, using a Greek dictionary or a Greek reference work, denies the doctrine of the pure preservation of scriptures. Second Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” Psalm 12:6-7 says, “The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever” (emphasis mine). God promised to preserve his word in a pure form. He promised to preserve those words for us, and so the Holy Bible (KJV) is still pure and it is still inspired, according to Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV).
YOu are foolish! It is not correcting but defining. How can we know what English word to plug in unless we see what was originally written. Are you that silly?
If “the word” is in a Greek text only, then only the Greek-speaking churches could “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2) and only those fluent in Greek could be “born again by the word.” Acts 2:6 says, “[E]very man heard them speak in his own language.” I do not think that God is in the business of deceiving house-wives who do not have access to a library of Greek reference books. (First Corinthians 6:4 reminds us to “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.”) We can have confidence that “every word” in the King James Bible is the pure word of God.
I never said this so this is just a red herring.
Men such as Wycliffe and Coverdale, whom God entrusted to participate in the preservation of the scriptures, had a much higher view of our English Bibles than do today’s carnal ‘professors.’ Doubting Thomases, who must see the print on the "originals", in their hands, call it ‘heresy’ to believe that God is powerful enough and cares enough about us to make certain that simple Christians can hold in their hands the inspired words of God. Both Coverdale and Wycliffe believed that the English Bible was just as inspired of the Holy Ghost as the "originals."
I do not care about todays "carnal professors" as you call them.

By the way Wycliffe and Cloverdale used Greek manuscripts to translate into the English! Whoops!!!!! And they also are just men.
“No, the Holy Ghost is as much the author of it in Hebrew, Greek, French, Dutch, and English, as in Latin” (W. Kenneth Connolly, The Indestructible Book, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996, p. 148).

The Bible states that it is alive! It is the very voice of God, speaking to each person. First Peter writes of “the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” (1 Peter 1:23). The Bible is not the words of the Moses, Matthew, Paul, Peter, or the KJV translators; Paul said, “[W]hen ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thes. 2:13). The Bible refers to itself as the word (and words) of God.
Yes the Spirit was thhe prime author.

But make no mistake, the Word of God is the words of the inspired writeers that god preserved their writings for all time!

There is no mystical revelations, new books, new epistles that are Scripture. Those who think along those lines are merely cult leader wannabes.