Difficult Words

[annsni]

I am going to answer this post, it is a good example of a well reasoned, logical post. Sadly, it has very little to do with what I posted and completely misses every major point I made, but it still deserves an answer.

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

Wow - going to the language that God had the New Testament written in is dangerous? I'd say that's a scary accusation.

For the benefit of those who may not have a Strongs sitting readily at hand, let me give exactly what it says before I make any comments.

4704. spoudazo, spoo-dad'-zo; from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:-do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.

I fail to see how difficult this is to understand.

I have a Strong's right here. There is an error in how you are reading your Strong's. The definition is 1) to hasten, make haste; 2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence. Then if you use some different websites with the Strong's, it gives the different translations of that word in the KJV. My Blue Letter Bible has "AV - endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1" "Study" is the way the KJV translators decided to translate the word. However interestingly, the last definition of the word "study" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "To endeavor diligently." Saying that "spoudazo" means "study" as in our common language of today is completely 100% wrong. I'm sorry but taking a word in the KJV, going to the Greek then saying it means 'study' because it's in the definition is wrong since 'study' is not the definition but the way the word is translated in the KJV! That is kind of a catch 22 - which doesn't work for interpreting Scripture.

Now lets examine each of the renderings from the versions that you gave:

NKJV: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV
Lets see what Webster has to say about the word "diligent"

Steady in application to business; constant in effort or exertion to accomplish what is undertaken; assiduous; attentive; industrious; not idle or negligent; applied to persons.

Not bad, but clearly inferior to the message carried in the word "study"

That would be if you are correct that "study" means "study" in our common language. However, since the word in the Greek means "diligent", then i think it is clearly a much superior word than "study". The KJV translation of this word in our common language today is wrong. It is an outdated translation.

Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the purpose of learning what is not before known.

We study the Bible to learn new things, to excercise our minds, and to grow spiritually.

Yes, we absolutely do this. There is no question. However, it is not at all the meaning of this verse.

ESV:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

This is not even in Strongs, and carries an even weaker message still. "Do your best"? It is true God wants us to do our best for Him, but there is a world of difference studying and doing our best. The ESV has neatly removed from the Bible the command to study the Bible.

No - the ESV has not removed the command to study the Bible because the Greek did not say that. If you are looking at the KJV as meaning "study" as it does in today's language, then the KJV is absolutely 100% wrong in the translation of this verse. Yes - IN ERROR. However, since "study" meant to "endeavor diligently" during the 1600s, then "study" was the right translation. But when words change, we do not change the meaning of the verse to match it. If that's the way you're going to interpret Scripture, then James 2:3 will be talking about clothing that homosexuals wear. However "gay" in 1611 (and even in the first half of the 20th century) didn't mean "homosexual" but "fine, showy". Big difference, don't you think?

I am in college, and I have these things called "tests", anyone know what I mean?
I can just "do my best" on them, or I can study the material, strive to learn what I do not know and then do my best on the test. Likewise, we should study our Bibles, strive to learn from our Bibles, and seek to not be ashamed before God for our ignorence of His Word.

I could have guessed you were in college by your misled mind.

However, you are absolutely right. We are to study our Bibles, hide the Word in our hearts that we might not sin against the Lord. We are to have an answer for the hope that is within us and we are to be like the Bereans comparing all we learn to God's holy Word. But that is only part of 2 Timothy 2:15. It's an ingredient in being diligent to be a worker approved by God. Study, prayer, fellowship, right teaching, etc. are all ingredients but most of all we are to be DILIGENT in study, DILIGENT in prayer, DILIGENT in fellowship, DILIGENT in right teaching. We are to be diligent. THAT is what "study" means.

I might also point out, that given the fact that the King James translators are easily more qualified on the basis of their scholarly training then any modern day Bible corrector, and if the choice comes up between taking what they believed should be the correct word, and what a modern day translator says. I will take them every time.

In Christ,
Thumper

OK - can you prove to me that the translators of the KJV are more easily qualified on the basis of their scholarly training? Are you telling us that God stopped being sure that there were men and women who strove to have an accurate version of the Word of God? That the many manuscripts that have since been found and more than anything else PROVED the words of the Bible rather than questioning them were put there by Satan? I'm amazed at this aspect of the KJVO argument. That God has stopped working. That there are NO men who are capable of being used by God. That there is not ONE man in the last almost 400 years who God can raise up to study the evidence and be sure that what we have is true.

What a limit to God. My God is more than able to be sure that not only is there scholars today like Logos and John of Japan who faithfully translate God's Word into other languages, but that they are being used by God in a mighty way. I see God work. I'm sorry you don't.

 

[annsni]

Exactly, the man came in here, posted in a very NICE manner, and got ridiculed and laughed at! And he only asked for CIVIL conversation and debate. Do the administrators not see this? You're driving people away with the ATTITUDE.

IF someone had a valid argument, then it would stand. However, wrongly translating a word then using it as your defense, isn't a very good argument.

The administrators see this. Not one person has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is, it is faithful and it is a wonderful Bible today. However, it is not the only Bible that is valid today. My ESV says the same thing as the KJV and tells of the mighty works of God, His plan for salvation, the true doctrines of the church and what our future holds. I know for sure my NIV, NASB and NKJV says the same thing. I saw a HCSB at church in the lost and found that I tagged because I'd love a copy of it too. I'm pretty sure that says the same things as well.

Come here with an erronious argument and it will be discussed strongly. Come here with truth? A different story.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

For the benefit of those who may not have a Strongs sitting readily at hand, let me give exactly what it says before I make any comments.

There is a great amount of irony in someone talking about a "little knowledge" of Greek and then citing Strong's for support. Let me suggest that you never cite Strong's as support for a point made in the original language. If you don't know Greek, then stay out of it.

On to the point, there are some less common words in the NIV and other modern translations. However, they are not archaic.

Colonnade I Ki 7:6 Porch

You didn't cite it accurately. The KJV has "porch of pillars." This is, in modern terms, called a colonnade.

Dissipation I Pet 4:4 Riot

In modern terms, a "riot" is a mob scene. The word here means "reckless living." "Dissipation" is a strange translation of it, though it is what the Greek Lexicons give.

Filigree Ex 28:20 Enclosings

A filigree is a setting. That is different than what is commonly thought of as an "enclosing."

Floodgates Gen 7:11 Windows

Yes, a floodgate is opened and water comes rushing out of it.

Gadfly Jer 46:20 Destruction

The Hebrew word refers to a biting insect, which is what a gadfly is. There is a Hebrew word for destruction. It is not used in that verse.

Goiim Gen 14:1 Nations

This was a mistranslation likely by the KJV. The word Goiim here, while it can mean "nations" is actually a place name, most likely. If you read the verse, you will see that there is a listing of kings and their territories. "Nations" makes no sense. "Goiim" as a city name does.

Hades Rev 20:14 Hell

Strangely enough, the word in Rev 20:14 is hades

Incited 1 Chr 21:1 Provoked

The word "incite" means to provoke.

Jowls Deut 18:3 Cheeks

A jowl is a cheek.

Magi Matt 2:1 Wise men

The word is Magoi, which is transliterated as "Magi."

Marauders Job 12:6 Robbers

A marauder is a robber.

Mina Lk 19:16 Pound

The word used is "mina." It is a measure of money.

Naïve Rom 16:18 Simple

Naive is an excellent rendering here.

Negev Gen 12:9 South

The word in Hebrew is Negev. It is the name of the territory.

Nephilim Gen 6:4 Giants

The word in Hebrew is Nephiliim.

Offal Ex 29:14 Dung

The word probably refers to the contents of the stomach and intestines, which is what offal is.

Piled Lk 23:9 Questioned

The word is plied, not piled. It means to ask question.

Pinions Deut 32:11 Wings

The Hebrew word means "pinions." The KJV is misleading here. It uses the word "wings" twice, where the verse actually uses two different words.

Porphyry Est 1:6 Red

The meaning is uncertain here.

So as we can see, some of these are simply words you should get out your dictionary and look up if you weren't familiar with them. They are not archaic.

Some of these are places where the NIV didn't do a good job.

In the end, comparing teh KJV to the NIV or any other translation isn't good methodology. It really makes no sense.

We need to compare translations to the original language to see what God inspired.

 

[Jim1999]

The KJV is commonly called the Church of England Bible. Most of the translators were Church of England vicars and Bishops. It is amazing that more Baptists are not Anglican since many passages have definite leanings to the Anglican theological viewpoint. I learned my Anglican teaching through the KJV.

The only Godly men were Anglican in those days?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Baptist4life]

On to the point, there are some less common words in the NIV and other modern translations.

So as we can see, some of these are simply words you should get out your dictionary and look up if you weren't familiar with them.

Is that not the EXACT same thing people say about the mis-understood words in the KJV?? Yet, that suggestion was scoffed at when it was concerning the KJV.:BangHead:

 

[annsni]

Is that not the EXACT same thing people say about the mis-understood words in the KJV?? Yet, that suggestion was scoffed at when it was concerning the KJV.:BangHead:

How many people know or have access to the 1828 Webster dictionary? A 21st century dictionary will not give the proper definitions for many of the words in the KJV but they WOULD give the definitions for the less common words in the NIV.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

IF someone had a valid argument, then it would stand. However, wrongly translating a word then using it as your defense, isn't a very good argument.

The administrators see this. Not one person has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is, it is faithful and it is a wonderful Bible today. However, it is not the only Bible that is valid today. My ESV says the same thing as the KJV and tells of the mighty works of God, His plan for salvation, the true doctrines of the church and what our future holds. I know for sure my NIV, NASB and NKJV says the same thing. I saw a HCSB at church in the lost and found that I tagged because I'd love a copy of it too. I'm pretty sure that says the same things as well.

Come here with an erronious argument and it will be discussed strongly. Come here with truth? A different story.

The problem is, if a Bible has even one error in it, then it is not the Word of God, if there is an error, then it cannot be perfect, and God's Word is perfect.

Jesus couldn't have been God's perfect son if He had even a tiny drop of sin in Him, likewise, God's Word "which he hath magnified above his very name" must be perfect.

This thread is not about the ESV, but I might point out that the ESV reads completely differently then my KJV does in many places. Among which are [FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29;and Romans 16:24.

[/FONT][FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]I might ask you, what are the "true doctrines of the church"? Are you talking about the Fundamentals as set forth in the Fundamentalist Papers? The true doctrines according to the Catholics, whose MSS are the basis for the ESV? What? Lets nail this down before we get any further.

And on that note, I bid ya'll good-night, God bless, and I will see(metaphorically) ya'll tomorrow.

Thumper
[/FONT]

 

[annsni]

The problem is, if a Bible has even one error in it, then it is not the Word of God, if there is an error, then it cannot be perfect, and God's Word is perfect.

Then the KJV1611 and it's subsequent editions are not God's Word.

Jesus couldn't have been God's perfect son if He had even a tiny drop of sin in Him, likewise, God's Word "which he hath magnified above his very name" must be perfect.

Then the KJV is not God's Word.

This thread is not about the ESV, but I might point out that the ESV reads completely differently then my KJV does in many places. Among which are [FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29;and Romans 16:24.

I don't care so much about if the ESV reads differently than the KJV in places (it will - because it is using ALL of the manuscript evidence AND it's written in a modern language rather than a 400 year old language. The KJV is not the measuring stick. The originals are.

[/FONT]

[FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]I might ask you, what are the "true doctrines of the church"? Are you talking about the Fundamentals as set forth in the Fundamentalist Papers? The true doctrines according to the Catholics, whose MSS are the basis for the ESV? What? Lets nail this down before we get any further.

LOL - The ESV and the Catholics have nothing to do with each other. I've seen that argument and find it quite elementary.

However, I am speaking of the true doctrines of the church that are explained through the Scriptures. If you don't know them, you might want to study more. I don't go by man's papers but God's.

 

[EdSutton]

Good one.I have asked KJVO folks before if Noah Webster's very mild update would be considered as God's Word.But no response of any merit was forthcoming.

Benjamin Blayney's Standard Edition of 1769 meets with their approval -- so why shouldn't Noah Webster's?

If they consider Webster tampering with the Word of God why does Blayney get a pass?

If N.W. was a bad guy in their eyes why should his 1828 dictionary be so welcomed?

Funny, I've asked almost the same thing. Well, I did add the WES-NT, as well.

And the silence has also been deafening here, as well.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

And both sides have that problem, although IMHO, there are a lot more of them on the MV side, then the KJVO side.

The problem with this is that it is a choice of false alternatives.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

I like something I once heard. "Be careful with your words. They could come back to haunt you."

I might also point out, that given the fact that the King James translators are easily more qualified on the basis of their scholarly training then any modern day Bible corrector, and if the choice comes up between taking what they believed should be the correct word, and what a modern day translator says. I will take them every time.

Well, you, I, and anyone else certainly have the right to take whomever we wish. However, it is nothing but opinion, at best, that the KJV translators are more (or the same or less) qualified than are any other similar translation team. I'll offer the opinion that no one translator of whom I'm aware, KJV or any other version, with the possible exceptions of John Wycliffe and John Nelson Darby, could come close to matching the abilities of William Tyndale.

Darby, after all, did translate the Bible into the English, German, and French languages, from the original languages. And all the translations are above that of the average bear, from what I've been able to ascertain.

Not too shabby, IMO. No one else has ever come close to doing that, of whom I'm aware.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi Thump,

Trust you will have another great semester at PCC.

Do you really believe this statement though?

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

If the KJV translating team did not delve into the Greek, how did we get ther marvelous translation?

Your implication here:

Paul, in the second of his epistles to the church at Corinth, chapter two and verse 17, warns that there were, even back then, those who sought to “corrupt the word of God”. We also find a condemnation in Jeremiah, chapter 23 and verse 36, of those who had “perverted the words of the living God”, messing with the Word of God is serious business in God’s eyes.

is inconsistent. If this warning applies to Bible translation as you imply, could the KJV translating team not be guilty of the same for changing the words of earlier English translations?

Your use of the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test has nothing to do with archaic and out of date words. It is based only on the numbers of syllables in a word and the number of words in a sentence. It does not attempt to take out of date words into account and therefore is false measure of readability.

One quick example - I love the KJV word 'careful' in Philippians 4. I wish it still meant 'full of care.' It is a nice, easy two syllable word that every child could read. The problem is that it no longer means 'full of cares' but now implies the opposite of recklessness. The average reader would not think to look the word up in a dictionary, so without instruction would interpret it this way 'Be reckless in everything'

The word itself is easy to read, but the meaning as evolved in the last 400 years. We tell people all the time 'be careful' but God says, 'be careful for nothing.'

Anyway - the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test was not designed to deal with definitions of words, just length of words and sentences.

 

[4His_glory]

I appreciate the defense raised over the issue, but let me say that so far, it has been polite, and I have no problem with the way people have responded. True, the original point I made seems to have pretty much been ignored, but I am still seeing some very good points made, in a civil manner, just as I requested. As they do not address the issue I raised in my OP, I do not intend to respond to that many of them, but the ones that raise the best questions, and show a good spirit, plus are well reasoned, I intend to answer.

Is there a bias against KJVO people on this board? Only in the sense that the majority of the posters on here are not KJVO, yes, many things get posted that show that the amount of nothing that some people know is astonishing, but I am really not seeing that here. And both sides have that problem, although IMHO, there are a lot more of them on the MV side, then the KJVO side. But that is my opinion, and I am certainly not going to complain over the way things are going on in this thread.

In Christ and for His Glory,
Thumper

Thumper EDIT: Besides, even though any KJVO poster on here will get pretty much swamped by the amount of responses by MV proponents to any thread he makes, I like to think of it as a guarantee that posts will be read.

Thumper,
In reality, dealing with the Timothy passage is not totally off topic. You brought up the archaic language issue, and it was addressed. An example was given of an ambiguous word in the KJV of which you attempted to defend.

I really would like an answer to my question. I want to know if the old spanish Bible is wrong along with the MVs in not using the word study. We can start another thread if you like.

 

[4His_glory]

There is a great amount of irony in someone talking about a "little knowledge" of Greek and then citing Strong's for support. Let me suggest that you never cite Strong's as support for a point made in the original language. If you don't know Greek, then stay out of it.

I thought the same thing. I am glad you pointed that out. Some believe they can use Strongs to determine the original meaning of word. The problem is that context is necessary to understand the exact usage- hence the need to really study and know Greek.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Is that not the EXACT same thing people say about the mis-understood words in the KJV?? Yet, that suggestion was scoffed at when it was concerning the KJV.

I don't think so and I didn't hear anyone scoff. There is a difference between a word that you do not know and a word that is archaic.

 

[Baptist4life]

I don't think so and I didn't hear anyone scoff. There is a difference between a word that you do not know and a word that is archaic.

That's ridiculous and WEAK, and you know it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the purpose of learning what is not before known.

We study the Bible to learn new things, to excercise our minds, and to grow spiritually...

The definition Thumper gave from Webster's 1828 is one of the six definitions for the noun form of the word. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) that "study" is being used as a verb in this verse. As annsi pointed out earlier, one of only three definitions of the intransitive verb form is 'to endeavor diligently'.

I would certainly think that it would be most beneficial that if one must run to a dictionary when reading the Bible that he would have a firm understanding of the structure of language in order to find the right definition.

 

[annsni]

That's ridiculous and WEAK, and you know it.

:laugh:

Oh really? Words that are no longer used and words that you just don't know (but are modern words) are no different? Since we can get proper definitions of modern words from a typical dictionary certainly DOES make a difference.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That's ridiculous and WEAK, and you know it.

Really? How so? Feel free to offer an argument in support of your statement. Don't just make assertions.

What exactly are you saying, and why?

Are you are saying that there is no difference between a word you don't know and a word that is archaic?

 

[Baptist4life]

I'm saying that some of the words of the NIV are more ARCHAIC than some of the words in the KJV, yet I NEVER hear anyone criticize the NIV for archaic words!


NIV KJV
Colonnade I Ki 7:6 Porch
Dissipation I Pet 4:4 Riot
Filigree Ex 28:20 Enclosings
Floodgates Gen 7:11 Windows
Gadfly Jer 46:20 Destruction
Goiim Gen 14:1 Nations
Hades Rev 20:14 Hell
Incited 1 Chr 21:1 Provoked
Jowls Deut 18:3 Cheeks
Magi Matt 2:1 Wise men
Marauders Job 12:6 Robbers
Mina Lk 19:16 Pound
Naïve Rom 16:18 Simple
Negev Gen 12:9 South
Nephilim Gen 6:4 Giants
Offal Ex 29:14 Dung
Piled Lk 23:9 Questioned
Pinions Deut 32:11 Wings
Porphyry Est 1:6 Red