Difficult Words

[rbell]

If it is all right to use a dictionary or check context to determine what a passage says, then why is it not alright to do the same thing for a KJV? This is a duplicitious position.

In Christ,
Thumper

If language changes enough that we need a dictionary, then hasn't it changed enough that a new translation would be beneficial?

Talk about duplicitous...

 

[Keith M]

Hi KJVBibleThumper

Great post.
--------------------------------------------------
Also a very informative response to Keith M, about his problem with 1Timothy 2:15


I wonder why Satan, would not want us to “study” the Bible?

SL, no one even remotely suggested we shouldn't study the Bible, That's absolutely ridiculous. Of coures we should study the Bible. But that isn't what the verse says. It's obvious the "problem" is yours.

BTW, you might look into changing your screen name, SL. Your mind is made up and you're not at all willing to learn, as you have shown repeatedly.

 

[Keith M]

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.

Not a wise position at all, Thumper. A living language changes over the course of time. What was a good rendering in 1611 isn't necessarily a good rendering today. As language changes, the words used to convey the message must sometimes change in order to keep the true meaning that was first written.

BTW, Thumper, the only "Bible correctors" I know are those who would "correct" any translation that isn't one of the KJVs. Many KJVOs like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger are notorious Bible correctors. Are you a Bible corrector, Thumper?

 

[Keith M]

I also must agree with this. Let anyone even mention the KJV, let alone comment on trusting this version. And immediately just as in a Chicken fight he gets flogged, without further question.

Not true, Samuel. There are many who love and trust the KJVs. We also love and trust modern Bible translations. Modern Bible translations are gifts from God just as the KJVs are gifts from God. There are those of us who stand firmly against the incorrect opinion that there's only one English translation that's the true word of God. See the difference?

What'll get folks "flogged without further question" is the promotion of the KJVO position. When we Bible believers stand firmy against what we believe is a false, man-made myth about a particular Bible translation we're NOT standing against the KJVs.

 

[EdSutton]

I wish you well at PCC. BTW, what are you studying?

Duh,King James Onlyism!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You need to study brevity.

Would you recommend EdSutton as the instructor for this task?

Hmmm! I guess I should take that as a "No!" ??

Actually, somehow, I didn't think you would recommend EdSutton.

How about Language Cop?

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I was just going to suggest our OP study the KJV word "study". Thanks for posting first! That's what I get for going out to much horse poop!!

Did you mean to say "mulch"? Here ya' go. They'll help!

Ed

 

[Keith M]

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 by your own definition, Thumper, modern readers don't have the word of God at all. The various KJVs have human errors in them as well as the modern translations. But a human error here and there doesn't change the entire message of Scripture. If one error disqualifies a Bible translation from being the word of God, then NO English Bible translation is the word of God. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the KJVs have errors in this thread, but Ahaziah couldn't possibly have been both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) at the same point in time, no matter how KJVOs bend over backward and twist all truth and logic in an effort to legitimize this obvious error.

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.

God's word IS perfect - the message is unchanged in the various legitimate English Bible translations we have available to us today. The KJVs as well as the legitimate modern translations all teach Jesus' deity, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His cruel death on the cross, His burial, His glorious and triumphant resurrection, His ascension, His current postion in heaven, His intercession for us, His eventual return, His millennial kingdom, and a new heaven and a new earth. If the messsage is unchanged then how can you accuse modern Bible translations of being in error and therefore not the word of God?

The problem with KJVOs is that you fail to realize God doesn't care about preserving a particular set of English words. English didn't exist when the Bible was written. God cares much more about preserving the message Scripture gives us. If God's intention was to preserve only particular words then we would have to do away with Bible translations in all modern languages and revert to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear. Also I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. 2 Timothy 4:17 NKJV

Hmmm...no mention of specific words here. What's being preached? Right - the message.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 1 John 1:5 NKJV

What have we heard? Specific words? Nope! We have heard the message.

For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 1 John 3:11 NKJV

What has beed heard from the beginning? Certain words? No - the message!

On one side of the coin there's God preserving His message to us humans. He has preserved the message for many centuries and in multiple Bible translations. On the other side of the coin there are KJVOs who oppose God and who try to preserve a particular set of words from a language that didn't exist when the Bible was written.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Pardon me, but I am still unclear as to what mistake I made,...

Are you kidding? How can you honestly say that? You made multiple major and minor mistakes throughout the thread. These are just a sampling --

First, there was the whole 2 Timothy 2:15 "study" debacle (in which you cited the wrong definition based on word form). Second, there was the misapplication of the Flesh-Kincaid grade level test to the issue of difficult words. Third, there was the misleading 'chart' (with the erroneous capitalization). Next, there was at least one objective goof in the list (concerning Esther 1:6). But the most serious problem was the false premise given in the OP (“do the archaic words in the King James, merit a new translation?”) which you never honestly "address".

 

[robycop3]

BT, you're gonna lose every argument over 2 Tim. 2:15. 400 years ago, study also meant 'endeavor, strive, as does the Greek spoudazo. But we no longer use 'study' in this manner. Thus, the newer versions are correct when they say 'be diligent, endeavor, strive'.

While the KJV is correct here for the time it was written, that time is long past.

1 Thess. 4:11"And that ye study to be quiet..."

Does that make much sense in modern English? Not unless one uses the archaic "be diligent" definition of 'study'.

 

[annsni]

Did you mean to say "mulch"? Here ya' go. They'll help!

Ed

Honestly I have NO idea what I was meaning to say! "much" doesn't work with it! "Shovel" does. I went to shovel horse poop!! LOL

MAN, I must have been tired (there was a lot of manure there - the horses were in all day).

 

[gb93433]

In regards to 2 Tim 2:15 it is a fact that the vast majority of people (Christians included) could not read during that time period. Only about 2% of the people could read. So taking into account the fact that not many could read, it would be impossible for most of them to "study", but all of them could be diligent to obey the word.

 

[Rippon]

In regards to 2 Tim 2:15 it is a fact that the vast majority of people (Christians included) could not read during that time period. Only about 2% of the people could read. So taking into account the fact that not many could read it would be impossible for most of them to "study" but they all of them could be diligent to obey the word.

"But they all of them" is rather awkward English.(Rip said in passing through.)

 

[Rippon]

I just thought of two more meanings for 'study' -- decidedly non-academic meanings. One is from the Hymn "Down By The Riverside" wriiten/sung sometime after the Civil War.One of the lines goes:"I ain't gonna' study war no more (or 'mo')". Somehow I don't think a pen and paper were needed for this kind of 'study'.

Then,the phrase more common in the past especially among country folks was :"I'll have to study on that." That simply meant that I'll have to ponder that -- give it some thought.

 

[robycop3]

There's no problem here at all-the KJV was written in English current for 400 years ago, & the language has changed a great deal over those 400 years. And if GOD had intended for us to be stuck in the past, He wouldn'ta allowed the language to change.

 

[gb93433]

There is no doubt that there are a number of words in the KJV that have passed out of common usage, but many of them frankly have no "modern" word that that can be used in their place and carry the same weight or idea. Bst just to leave well enough alone. Why mess around with it? Just get a dictionary.

Try looking at the word "conversation" in the KJV and see if it is actually true to the meaning of the text.

Just imagine someone saying, " 1Pet 3:1, 2, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Salamander]

Try looking at the word "conversation" in the KJV and see if it is actually true to the meaning of the text.

Just imagine someone saying, " 1Pet 3:1, 2, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The old John and Yoko syndrome at work!

I don't have to "imagine" what I already experienced!:godisgood:

 

[gb93433]

I don't have to "imagine" what I already experienced!

Your theology is based on experience?

 

[Keith M]

Can we actually refer to the KJVO position as theology since it isn't even hinted at in Scripture?

 

[gb93433]

Can we actually refer to the KJVO position as theology since it isn't even hinted at in Scripture?

I wonder which KJV Jesus used?