Should all archaic words have been left in text of KJV?

[thomas15]

.....
I believe we should be "apt to teach". This means a full understanding of the words, being able to teach others also what the Bible is saying. This being apt would then require the understanding of what the older words say and how they reflected the meaning at that itme in history.

How do you invision this in practical terms Mr. Garvey? Are the individual believers supposed to on their own learn the meaning of the terms in context, is the church supposed to take the lead and teach vocabulary to the people or a combibation of both or something else?

What do you suggest I do personally? I'm not KJVO nor do I attend a KJVO church, but I do have and read the KJV although it is not my translation of choice.

So, please lay out a recovery plan for me to get on board with your "apt to teach" methods. I have a few dictionaries, lexicons and grammars, what I don't have is a method. this is where you can help.

Thanks,
Tom

 

[EdSutton]

Not as the defintion shows. In 1611 the unicorn wasn't understood to be a mystical beast but the wild ox.

OK, I guess, but I don't live in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, and that is generally what is meant today, when I look up the word "unicorn".

Taking the word for granted in one of the biggest mistakes the casual reader can make. The use of "unicorn" in the text proves this to be the reality of those types of mistakes.

What happened to the aim of William Tyndale, who wanted to cause the "ploughboy" to be able to easily understand the Scriptures in everyday language? Incidentally, that specifically applies to me, as a farmer, although I do use a tractor instead of a span of horses, a team of mules, or a yoke of oxen to pull the plow, these days.

I find it amusing you would know 398 years later what the translators were thinking.

Why should I even have to be concerned to find this out, to begin with? (Why would you consider that we even should have to consider this??)

Personally, I'm interested in the results of any translator efforts, and don't particularly care what they may happened to have been thinking.

Ed

 

[Harold Garvey]

What is the evidence that shows that the KJV translators used the rendering "unicorn" to mean "the wild ox?"

There was a picture of a unicorn in the 1611 edition of the KJV in the Royal Coat of Arms of King James I, and that picture was of the "mythical" beast.

In the 1680's or later at least one book or commentary maintained that the Hebrew word reem could have referred to some type "ox." A good number of Bible scholars from the 1700's until this day consider the Hebrew word reem to refer to "the wild ox." Identification of the Hebrew word reem with "the wild ox" is not evidence that the rendering "unicorn" was intended to mean "wild ox."

It may be your references are somewhat limited.

 

[Harold Garvey]

It may mean a rhino or ox but idiots still think it means the mythical unicorn, so it needs to be changed.

How rude. exactly what I mentioned in my first post in this forum.

 

[Harold Garvey]

How do you invision this in practical terms Mr. Garvey? Are the individual believers supposed to on their own learn the meaning of the terms in context, is the church supposed to take the lead and teach vocabulary to the people or a combibation of both or something else?

So practicality must maintain a contemporary usuage to be accepted?

Who "learns on their own"?

What do you suggest I do personally? I'm not KJVO nor do I attend a KJVO church, but I do have and read the KJV although it is not my translation of choice.

May I suggest you take an inventory of your learning experiences and then apply them to what you do not yet understand?

If the KJV is NOT your version of choice, then why do you even own one?

Whether some one is "KJVO" or no does not amount to anything here except it opens the floodgate of some of the most reprehensible behavior I have ever witnessed amongst proclaiming Christians against anyone who is deemed that dubious title.

So, please lay out a recovery plan for me to get on board with your "apt to teach" methods. I have a few dictionaries, lexicons and grammars, what I don't have is a method. this is where you can help.

Thanks,
Tom

Seems you're being a shade dishonest here, your "method' began when you opened any of the above.

 

[Harold Garvey]

OK, I guess, but I don't live in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, and that is generally what is meant today, when I look up the word "unicorn".

So you believe the word of God is subject to perverse and corrupt redefinings of our words?

What happened to the aim of William Tyndale, who wanted to cause the "ploughboy" to be able to easily understand the Scriptures in everyday language?

Well, like any plowboy's mother, his aim is appreciated in the bathroom, otherwise you'd have to ask him personally. I am not much for speaking in the stead of the deceased, you?

Incidentally, that specifically applies to me, as a farmer, although I do use a tractor instead of a span of horses, a team of mules, or a yoke of oxen to pull the plow, these days.Why should I even have to be concerned to find this out, to begin with? (Why would you consider that we even should have to consider this??)

Oh, my! You decry the usage of a term and then define it as if you hadn't already known the meaning of that term!:jesus:

Personally, I'm interested in the results of any translator efforts, and don't particularly care what they may happened to have been thinking.

Ed

Nice, you take what I said to some one else and apply it to yourself. But thanks for expressing your not caring for what some else thought.:thumbs:

 

[EdSutton]

So you believe the word of God is subject to perverse and corrupt redefinings of our words? Well, like any plowboy's mother, his aim is appreciated in the bathroom, otherwise you'd have to ask him personally. I am not much for speaking in the stead of the deceased, you? Oh, my! You decry the usage of a term and then define it as if you hadn't already known the meaning of that term! [Smilie snipped to print!]

Nice, you take what I said to some one else and apply it to yourself. But thanks for expressing your not caring for what some else thought. [Smilie snipped to print!]

While your response to me is generally not worth my effort to respond, I do have 5 things to inject, considering the tenor of your own post.

(1.) I "decried" no usage of any term, that I recall, for the time it was used. BTW, nice effort in combining a part of two responses of mine to two different ideas into one, to effectively attempt to place words into my own mouth! :thumbs:

(2.) I suggest your 'bathroom (off-color) humor' is entirely uncalled for , and I here request the Moderators to remove it from the post and thread. (Who was it that brought up "perverse and corrupt redefinings of words" here, anyway?)

(3.) This is an open debate forum. If one does not wish to receive responses, one need not post on a thread. I can assure you that that will work every single time.

(4.) FTR, I generally prefer two particular editions of the Bible as I have stated more than once, including on threads where I believe you have responded. Out of curiosity, did you even bother to read my post(s) to notice what they were?

(5.) Finally, I am happy to notice that you are not one to employ any use of sarcasm.

Ed

 

[Harold Garvey]

While your response to me is generally not worth my effort to respond, I do have 5 things to inject, considering the tenor of your own post.

yet you seem obliged to do so. Amusing

(1.) I "decried" no usage of any term, that I recall, for the time it was used. BTW, nice effort in combining a part of two responses of mine to two different ideas into one, to effectively attempt to place words into my own mouth! quote] Open mouth, insert foot, you did.

(2.) I suggest your 'bathroom (off-color) humor' is entirely uncalled for , and I here request the Moderators to remove it from the post and thread. (Who was it that brought up "perverse and corrupt redefinings of words" here, anyway?)

The "in the bathroom" remark is what one adds to the ending of every Chinese proverb. Nothing off color, just adding a wee-bit of humor, of which you seem to fall short of.

(3.) This is an open debate forum. If one does not wish to receive responses, one need not post on a thread. I can assure you that that will work every single time.

Then why do you respond?

(4.) FTR, I generally prefer two particular editions of the Bible as I have stated more than once, including on threads where I believe you have responded. Out of curiosity, did you even bother to read my post(s) to notice what they were?

Why so arrogant? I see no need to recognize your preferences as being subjective to any degree.

(5.) Finally, I am happy to notice that you are not one to employ any use of sarcasm.

Ed

I am being direct, you are dodging the subject before addressed.

Roll your eyes all you wish, but it adds nothing to your stature.:laugh:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have never known Mr. Ed Sutton to be arrogant, unlike some more recent posters.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I have never known Mr. Ed Sutton to be arrogant, unlike some more recent posters.

Arrogant:1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

This is usually typlified by the obsessive use of the pronoun "I" in any debate.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Arrogant:1 : exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

This is usually typlified by the obsessive use of the pronoun "I" in any debate.

That is not the only symptom. It is also typified by the need to always have the last word.