Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

Context is key:

If you were to keep reading, it says this:

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:1-2).​

The word "thee" means "you-all" or "everyone" in the King James Bible.

So Paul is telling Timothy that he charges ALL believers before God the Father, and Jesus Christ (the Son) to preach the Word, and to reprove, exhort, with long suffering in doctrine. Otherwise, there is no need for you to teach doctrine out of the Bible. 2 Timothy 4:1-2 is connected to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. While God intended there to be chapter and verse numbers in the Bible later on, in the original text, they were not there. So these two passages are connected together and should be read as a whole.

The word "thee" is italicized in the KJV. You do realize, don't you, the significance of italics in the KJV? Italics are used to signify man-made insertions of text deemed helpful by the translators to clarify the text according to THEIR opinion. When you make this kind of flawed evaluation, you simply corroborate the fallibility of exegesis, and thus reinforce the need for Direct Revelation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What is of import is how distinct("loud and clear") are the revelations, whether linguistic or visual, not whether they are sonic in the usual sense. (Is a voice heard in a dream or vision sonic? Is it audible? Again, those distinctions break down). Immature believers (like myself) tend to be saddled with indistinct revelations - revelations that are not particularly loud and clear. This kind of distinction is plain enough from Num 12:8-10.

Here's the problem with distinct revelations - here's why it's not easy to get them. A distinct revelation is tantamount to God speaking face to face with you. The upshot is that if you offend Him in any way, He is likely to break out in judgment against you. Yahweh hasn't changed - Christians are mistaken to think we are under a new dispensation. The Corinthians themselves were dying, in OT fashion, for judgment upon their profanity of the Last Supper. That's why Paul reminded them, in 1Cor 10, that all the OT examples of judgment serve as warnings to us.

God put it to Moses like this, "For the Lord had said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you.

And that's why, in the OT, not everyone was a prophet. You don't get to this level automatically. HOWEVER, God is less prone to anger - and there tends to be less sin - when there is a community of godly people who are jointly rising toward that office. What I am saying is this. Gods plan is for all congregations of believers to JOINTLY PUSH in the direction of Direct Revelation as to gradually produce godly communities that serve as fertile ground for the raising up of apostles and prophets. The PROBLEM is that the Sola Scriptura mentality has been pushing us in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION for 2,000 years. And since the church is thus not a fertile ground for a community of prophets, it becomes harder for ANY of us (such as myself) to obtain such grace.

Even though God's people have generally failed to push forward in the right direction, there have been a couple of times in history where He graciously outpoured a huge amount of grace and prophetic anointings - 2 especially great revivals in history (setting aside the minor ones for a moment)
(1) The era of Moses and Joshua.
(2) The apostolic period begun at Pentecost.

Hope that helps answer your question.

I don't think Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for the understanding on His Word. Many times, other Christians who are Sola Scriptura have told me to pray over the meaning of His Word. I see no evidence in the official teaching from a reputable source that says that Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for understanding Scripture or to know that it is true by God's Spirit. You keep making this false assertion that it is the official teaching of Sola Scriptura. Sure, I imagine some out there have come to rely more on the scholars, etc. I have seen that on the forums. They think that is the way to understand God's Word when it is not the way. But this is not mentioned in Sola Scriptura.

 

[JAL]

Again, I believe in a term I invented called "Gloria Scriptura." This means all minor information or outside sources of info., or the working of God to open a believer's eyes, the inward witness, the leading of the Spirit to understand Scripture, a pure conscience with God guiding us, the creation witnessing of God's existence, the speaking of words by the Holy Spirit during times of martyrdom (in Mark 13:11) are all to uplift and glorify what God's Word already says. They are secondary forms of information, or God working to give glorification to what His Word (the Bible) says.

John 16:13-15 does apply to us but in a different way. I believe for the faithful Christian today, John 16:13-15 is referring to how we can be guided by the Spirit to understand the truths in our Bible. That is how I understand that passage as applying to believers today. This is not in conflict with "Gloria Scriptura." Now, we also do need to keep in mind that this passage had an application for the apostles that did not exactly apply to us in the same exact way as it does for us today. We have a complete Bible. The apostles did not have a complete Bible. For they were forming it. So John 16:13-15 for the apostles would be that the Spirit would guide some of them into the formation of Scripture, and or to learn of God's ways in the formation of the early church.

Friend, exegesis isn't supposed to be a random endeavor. And it's already a fallible science. There has to be some consistent and reasonable hermeneutical rules, if we hope to avoid exegetical chaos. Otherwise, we can make the text say ANYTHING we'd like it to say. You are claiming, in this case, that the text need no longer mean what it meant !! That it could mean ONE THING for the apostles, but SOMETHING DIFFERENT for us. In other words, forget about what the text says - it could mean ANYTHING! How does such a hermeneutic lead to anything but exegetical chaos? And how does it support your campaign? Because with that kind of chaotic hermeneutic, I can simply claim that 2Tim 3:16-17 doesn't mean whatever YOU think it means.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The word "thee" is italicized in the KJV. You do realize, don't you, the significance of italics in the KJV? Italics are used to signify man-made insertions of text deemed helpful by the translators to clarify the text according to THEIR opinion. When you make this kind of flawed evaluation, you simply corroborate the fallibility of exegesis, and thus reinforce the need for Direct Revelation.

But you are doing the very thing that scholars do. You are trying to go to the original Hebrew and Greek to try and figure things out when you do not know these languages. But God did preserve His words today in the English. If God did not do so, then you and or your next door neighbor can just twist God's Word to high heaven and make it say whatever one wants it to say. There will be no accountability but to a person's own way of interpreting God's Word. Oh, but you will say.... "Direct Revelation" "Inward Witness." But so could your neighbor and yet you could both disagree on the interpretation of the text. See, when God's Word does not fit what you don't like, then you can change it to fit your belief. I will stand before God and believe what His Word says in a language I do know. You are going off your feelings and saying it is God, when yet another guy can do the same thing and get a different interpretation than you have.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Friend, exegesis isn't supposed to be a random endeavor. And it's already a fallible science. There has to be some consistent and reasonable hermeneutical rules, if we hope to avoid exegetical chaos. Otherwise, we can make the text say ANYTHING we'd like it to say. You are claiming, in this case, that the text need no longer mean what it meant !! That it could mean ONE THING for the apostles, but SOMETHING DIFFERENT for us. In other words, forget about what the text says - it could mean ANYTHING! How does such a hermeneutic lead to anything but exegetical chaos? And how does it support your campaign? Because with that kind of chaotic hermeneutic, I can simply claim that 2Tim 3:16-17 doesn't mean whatever YOU think it means.

Have you ever heard of Messianic prophecies before? If you believe in such a thing, that means there is a primary meaning to a text and a secondary meaning behind them that can sometimes speak prophetically into the future. For if all of the Bible was just for those guys in the past alone, and it could not be applied to our life, then such text is useless. All Scripture is profitable. Oh, wait. You believe that was for Timothy and or prophets or something silly like that. So Scripture is not profitable for you. Revelation is (Whatever you see that as).

I am curious: Do you see people making animal noises and or screaming on the ground in a church as being of God? I just ask because I do not see these things as of God. Please take no offense, I simply ask because I just want to see in who I am dealing with here.

 

[JAL]

I don't think Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for the understanding on His Word. Many times, other Christians who are Sola Scriptura have told me to pray over the meaning of His Word. I see no evidence in the official teaching from a reputable source that says that Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for understanding Scripture or to know that it is true by God's Spirit. You keep making this false assertion that it is the official teaching of Sola Scriptura. Sure, I imagine some out there have come to rely more on the scholars, etc. I have seen that on the forums. They think that is the way to understand God's Word when it is not the way. But this is not mentioned in Sola Scriptura.

I'm clear enough on my objections to Sola Scriptura. And you've done nothing to establish that I've misunderstood or mispresented that position. You yourself mentioned Prima Scriptura and seem to be well aware of the difference. Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the ONLY final authority for making religious decision and thus contradicts the (tautological) authority of the conscience-maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

Thus Sola Scriptura - the claim that we always need to "check it out with Scripture" - flatly contradicts every single case of Direct Revelation recorded in the Bible. I gave an example earlier. Here it is again. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

Again, it self-authenticates by raising our level of felt certainty to a degree that quenches any compunctions in our conscience.

I don't think Sola Scriptura is against praying to God for the understanding on His Word.

That leads to a logical contradiction, as clearly stated in my Summary at post 393. See point #4. At least one Sola Scriptura scholar, as I recall, took this issue seriously, he concluded that we should NOT pray to God for enlightenment. If you want to resolve objection #4, you'll need to be VERY CLEAR on your definition of how God enlightens us. I myself have been pretty clear - he enlightens us by causing us to feel certain of something, and at that point, per the maxim, we do NOT need to "check it out with Scripture".

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm clear enough on my objections to Sola Scriptura. And you've done nothing to establish that I've misunderstood or mispresented that position. You yourself mentioned Prima Scriptura and seem to be well aware of the difference. Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the ONLY final authority for making religious decision and thus contradicts the (tautological) authority of the conscience-maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

Thus Sola Scriptura - the claim that we always need to "check it out with Scripture" - flatly contradicts every single case of Direct Revelation recorded in the Bible. I gave an example earlier. Here it is again. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

Again, it self-authenticates by raising our level of felt certainty to a degree that quenches any compunctions in our conscience.


That leads to a logical contradiction, as clearly stated in my Summary at post 393. See point #4. At least one Sola Scriptura scholar, as I recall, took this issue seriously, he concluded that we should NOT pray to God for enlightenment. If you want to resolve objection #4, you'll need to be VERY CLEAR on your definition of how God enlightens us. I myself have been pretty clear - he enlightens us by causing us to feel certain of something, and at that point, per the maxim, we do NOT need to "check it out with Scripture".

Nope. The Bible talks about the conscience and in making right decisions and it talks about morals and gives us commands so as to be fruitful and loving and good to the glory of Christ. So if our Bible talks about these things, then our conscience is not an isolated thing that is foreign to Scripture because it already talks about it. Ever read Genesis 4:7 lately? It's got the subject matter covered already (even though you cannot see that). But as I said to you already. I believe in Gloria Scriptura. Do you know what I meant by it when I described it to you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm clear enough on my objections to Sola Scriptura. And you've done nothing to establish that I've misunderstood or mispresented that position. You yourself mentioned Prima Scriptura and seem to be well aware of the difference. Sola Scriptura is the claim that Scripture is the ONLY final authority for making religious decision and thus contradicts the (tautological) authority of the conscience-maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

Thus Sola Scriptura - the claim that we always need to "check it out with Scripture" - flatly contradicts every single case of Direct Revelation recorded in the Bible. I gave an example earlier. Here it is again. Picture Moses with a pen and paper proceeding to write Genesis. A comrade asks him what he's doing. He says, "I'm writing down what the Voice is telling me to write."

The comrade objects, "But why did you trust this voice? Did you check it out with Scripture?"

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this objection? Or just me? Isn't it clear that the divine Voice is self-authenticating and thus need not be tested?

Again, it self-authenticates by raising our level of felt certainty to a degree that quenches any compunctions in our conscience.


That leads to a logical contradiction, as clearly stated in my Summary at post 393. See point #4. At least one Sola Scriptura scholar, as I recall, took this issue seriously, he concluded that we should NOT pray to God for enlightenment. If you want to resolve objection #4, you'll need to be VERY CLEAR on your definition of how God enlightens us. I myself have been pretty clear - he enlightens us by causing us to feel certain of something, and at that point, per the maxim, we do NOT need to "check it out with Scripture".

Show me an official statement from a reputable source that states that Sola Scriptura is in the way that you suggest here. Does Wikipedia or those who created the term Sola Scriptura state that the conscience plays no part in any way in Sola Scriptura? See, this is your false assertion that you have made that has turned this whole argument into something that simply does not exist. You are like boxing and fighting against the air here, friend.

Side Note:

You do also have to realize that a conscience can also be defiled, too. For this would be a Sociopath. They have no understanding of right and wrong because their conscience is defiled. So the only thing that can save them is God's Word if they have faith and the Spirit convicts them of God's Word to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

 

[JAL]

But you are doing the very thing that scholars do. You are trying to go to the original Hebrew and Greek to try and figure things out when you do not know these languages.

Absolutely. I often fall back on (fallible) exegesis, as a temporary crutch, because I'm not yet a prophet. And I make no bones about it. But I try to employ cogent hermeneutical rules, not random chaotic ones.

There will be no accountability but to a person's own way of interpreting God's Word.

Sort of like always happens with exegesis? That kind of problem?

Oh, but you will say.... "Direct Revelation" "Inward Witness." But so could your neighbor and yet you could both disagree on the interpretation of the text. See, when God's Word does not fit what you don't like, then you can change it to fit your belief.

Sort of like you just did, exegetically, with John 16:13-15, when you said it no longer means what it used to mean? That kind of thing is what you are referring to?

I've already responded to similar posts of your, say for example at post 128. And again, so what if someone disagrees with you about a revelation? I've answered this 100 times. You'll do the same thing that you do now, in regard to disagreements over exegesis. You'll just follow the maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

If you feel certain that rejecting the OTHER guy's revelation (or his exegesis) is the right thing to do, then that's what you're SUPPOSED to do. Or stated negatively, if you don't feel certain enough about it to embrace it, then simply reject it, or put it on pause. Where's the big dilemma here? I don't see one. (Sigh). Again, the fact that 2 people disagree on what God says is not cause for throwing out the baby with the bathwater - otherwise the Bible should have been thrown out with in 30 days of its inception.

I will stand before God and believe what His Word says in a language I do know. You are going off your feelings and saying it is God, when yet another guy can do the same thing and get a different interpretation than you have.

No you won't. You can't. You can't stand on God's Word. All you can do is stand on your biased, fallible, exegetically flawed interepretations of it. Only Direct Revelation can liberate us from fallibility. You've heard of the sinful nature, right? Pride reigns. Can you honestly assure me, after roaming this forum for a while, that pride and stubborness do not influence doctrine, in a huge number of Christians, compounded by prior indoctrinations? I'll say it again. Exegesis simply does not work. That's why I pointed out, in my Summary, that Direct Revelation is a logically solid orientation that doesn't NEED any exegetical support - it's the most reasonable stance on religion regardless of which religion happens to be the true one. (I'm speaking narrowly of monotheistic religions of course).

 

[JAL]

Show me an official statement from a reputable source that states that Sola Scriptura is in the way that you suggest here. Does Wikipedia or those who created the term Sola Scriptura state that the conscience plays no part in any way in Sola Scriptura? See, this is your false assertion that you have made that has turned this whole argument into something that simply does not exist. You are like boxing and fighting against the air here, friend.

Frankly I've done enough homework, friend. Tell you what. How many citations can you find me of Sola Scriptura scholar who are saying that, when hearing a voice, we can take it as a final authority without need to "check it out with Scripture"? You'd be hard-pressed to find a single example. Therefore I'm confident that I've understood that movement correctly.

Take you yourself. YOU YOURSELF have been saying that conscience, for example, is possibly defiled and thus we need to "check it out with Scripture". Almost every one of your posts appeals to the written Word as the final authority. What more proof do I need, than your own words, that I'm on the right track?

Side Note:

You do also have to realize that a conscience can also be defiled, too. For this would be a Sociopath. They have no understanding of right and wrong because their conscience is defiled.

(Sigh) Again, are you advising the sociopath to disobey the maxim? If not, what possible relevance could there be in this strawman that you keep repeating?

 

[JAL]

Have you ever heard of Messianic prophecies before? If you believe in such a thing, that means there is a primary meaning to a text and a secondary meaning behind them that can sometimes speak prophetically into the future. For if all of the Bible was just for those guys in the past alone, and it could not be applied to our life, then such text is useless. All Scripture is profitable. Oh, wait. You believe that was for Timothy and or prophets or something silly like that. So Scripture is not profitable for you. Revelation is (Whatever you see that as).

Blatant misrepresentation. Regardless of whether 2 Timothy is addressed to me, I have OTHER reasons for believing that Scripture is useful. Clearly. I merely pointed out that it does't constitute definitive proof of Sola Scriptura.

I am curious: Do you see people making animal noises and or screaming on the ground in a church as being of God? I just ask because I do not see these things as of God. Please take no offense, I simply ask because I just want to see in who I am dealing with here.

That's a pretty radical scenario. Let's deal with a more realistic situation in church. Suppose a fellow believer approaches me and 'prophesies', "Thus saith the Lord. Pack up all your belongings immediately and move to Africa to preach the gospel."

How do I test that? Very simple. I simply ask myself, at the moment he uttered those words, did I feel absolute certainty? Did I feel 100% certainty? If not, I'll put little or no stock in his words.

Again, it's not complicated. If God wants you to accept something, it is HIS responsibility to provide the feelings of certainty. YOUR job is to "inquire of the Lord" (as the OT oft phrases it) waiting in prayer for Him to do so. And until you have it, you don't have to believe ANYTHING - especially not in animal noises and people screaming on the ground.

 

[JAL]

Nope. The Bible talks about the conscience and in making right decisions and it talks about morals and gives us commands so as to be fruitful and loving and good to the glory of Christ. So if our Bible talks about these things, then our conscience is not an isolated thing that is foreign to Scripture because it already talks about it.

Where did I say that conscience is foreign to Scripture? How is this not misrepresentation? How are your words even clear?

 

[JAL]

No. Thomas was in the wrong for not having faith.

And faith cometh by hearing:

"The Word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision [speaking promises]" (Gen 15).

The divine Word - the divine Word of Direct Revelation - is the author and perfecter of our faith.

Again, you Sola Scriptura advocates have a penchant for elevating the written Word at the expense of deprecating the divine Word.

 

[JAL]

FYI,
My Summary of Objections to Sola Scriptura is now updated with three new postulates (see points 14 thru 16).

 

[JAL]

You do also have to realize that a conscience can also be defiled, too. For this would be a Sociopath. They have no understanding of right and wrong because their conscience is defiled.

Because the maxim is tautological:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should go with B".

I tend to forget that it also finds biblical support in Roman 14. This entire chapter seems to be a verbose articulation of the maxim. The final verse suggests that an individual ultimately decides what is morally wrong based on whether he has doubts - this appears to mean doubts in the conscience. In other words, if he seems to lack a degree of felt certainty about action-A, he should refrain.

"But the one who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that is not from faith is sin" (Rom 14:23)

I just took a momentary peek at Calvin's commentary on Rom 14 and saw that Calvin seemed to mention the word 'conscience' a couple of times. Maybe later I take a closer look at his commentary, or some other commentary on Rom 14, and report back any findings that seem to support my maxim.

 

[JAL]

From Romans 14:

"One person regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord;b he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

If that isn't tantamount to "feeling certain", I hardly know what is.

 

[JAL]

Bible Highlighter,

Without even examining the commentaries, I think I can safely say that Rom 14 poses a significant rebuttal two complaints commonly heard from you and most other proponents of Sola Scriptura on these forums.
(1) What if the conscience is defiled? Paul doesn't seem to be preoccupied with that concern. In Rom 14, his primary concern is whether we are in a state of feeling doubt or certainty.
(2) Supposedly the Bible is to be our objective standard of morality, as though action-A is either right or wrong depending on what Scripture says. That's not Paul's position. Here's what Paul is saying. For ME, if I feel certain about action-A, it is morally upright. For YOU, if you're still feeling doubts about it, it is morally reprehensible.

Again, it's all tautological because God, unless He is an unjust judge, will evaluate us on whether we did what was right to the best of our knowledge.

 

[JAL]

Parallel to Romans 14 is the passage 1Cor 8:1-13 and,in that passage, Paul DOES mention the word conscience several times.

 

[Der Alte]

The word "thee" is italicized in the KJV. You do realize, don't you, the significance of italics in the KJV? Italics are used to signify man-made insertions of text deemed helpful by the translators to clarify the text according to THEIR opinion. When you make this kind of flawed evaluation, you simply corroborate the fallibility of exegesis, and thus reinforce the need for Direct Revelation.

Not correct.
How would your esoteric revelation instruct you to translate 2 Tim 4:1-2?

2 Timothy 4:1-2
1 charge [διαμαρτυρομαι/diamarturomai] [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.​

Translation is not a hit or miss proposition. Greek just as English has rules of grammar.
Yes "thee," vs. 1, has been added for clarity. Greek unlike English does not require certain things required in English. The pronoun "I" is also not in the Greek but since the word translated "I charge" is present tense, middle deponent, indicative, first person singular, that informs the Greek reader the writer is speaking.
"Thee," if understood as plural, is not correct since the context tells us that Paul is addressing Timothy.
In vs. 2 the word translated "preach" is aorist, active, imperative second person singular. That informs us that Paul is addressing a single person, Timothy.
Here is how the Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible translates the passage.

1. Before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom, I charge you to 2. preach the word Welcome or unwelcome, insist on it reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and instruction.​

Greek has always been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who better than the native Greek speaking EOB translators know the correct meaning of the Greek NT?
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/18204/18204-New-Testament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If you choose to consult the EOB version I suggest you read the preface which summarizes the scholarship supporting this translation.

 

[JAL]

Not correct.
How would your esoteric revelation instruct you to translate 2 Tim 4:1-2?

2 Timothy 4:1-2
1 charge [διαμαρτυρομαι/diamarturomai] [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.​

Translation is not a hit or miss proposition. Greek just as English has rules of grammar.
Yes "thee," vs. 1, has been added for clarity. Greek unlike English does not require certain things required in English. The pronoun "I" is also not in the Greek but since the word translated "I charge" is present tense, middle deponent, indicative, first person singular, that informs the Greek reader the writer is speaking.
"Thee," if understood as plural, is not correct since the context tells us that Paul is addressing Timothy.
In vs. 2 the word translated "preach" is aorist, active, imperative second person singular. That informs us that Paul is addressing a single person, Timothy.
Here is how the Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible translates the passage.

1. Before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom, I charge you to 2. preach the word Welcome or unwelcome, insist on it reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and instruction.​

Greek has always been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who better than the native Greek speaking EOB translators know the correct meaning of the Greek NT?
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/original/18204/18204-New-Testament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If you choose to consult the EOB version I suggest you read the preface which summarizes the scholarship supporting this translation.

Um...I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I have always assumed the singular. I was objecting to another poster who proposed the plural.