I Peter 2:2

[Precepts]

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm from the south and know exactly how things have changed, but that doesn't change the root meanings of words.

I love the Elizabethan English and it's eloquence and beauty. Today's language doesn't even begin to compare and is certainly becoming rather ugly, like your assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about: Ugly.

Even Roger Waters was right when he said, Did they get you to trade, hot ashes for trees, hot air for the cool breeze. Old comfort for change. Did you exchange? A walk out in the park, for a steel cage?

What will you trade our KJB for? I'm not trading!

 

[rsr]

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm from the south and know exactly how things have changed, but that doesn't change the root meanings of words.

But we're not talking about the root meanings of words. We're talking about what words mean now.

For example, sinister means "left-handed." I don't think my left-handed friend would understand if I referred to him as sinister.

 

[Precepts]

Then you should explain without your prejudice what "left-handed" meant then and not that he is, or even was considered sinister because of his being left handed.

Your presenting a lost cause to try and justify change from what is first peacable, then pure.

"Left handed" means to be opposed to Christ, seated at the "Right Hand" of The Father. And that is just one simple understanding Biblically.

 

[Precepts]

Don't make a sport of words while discussing Biblical principles by dragging the world's devices and definitions into play.

 

[rsr]

It is truly tiresome.

"I see, Bob, that your are sinister."

"What!"

"Oh, I only meant your are left-handed. After all, that's what sinister means."

Yeah, that's a good way to start a conversation.

Don't make a sport of words while discussing Biblical principles by dragging the world's devices and definitions into play.

Can't help it. I'm a writer. My job is to make a sport of words. Unfortunately, with people being people and language being language, the world's definitions come into play. Unlike the Muslim Arabs, I don't believe there is a single holy language frozen for all time.

Otherwise, I could be like the Latin Rite church and keep the same language for a millenium and pretend that people understood the words when they didn't.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
When you change the meanings of words, even though the world makes use of the changed words, it is a matter of the slang usage that accomplishes this.

Really? Please show us how sincere has a different definition now due to slang.

To look back to words and diminsh their meaning and to call them archaic is a deviation from truth.

How so? Who defines language? If there is a perfect language, and the KJV is that perfect language, then what are you doing using all that slang? Or have you forgotten that earlier in the thread you said, and I quote, "I'm sorry, guys yall can dote about all you want, but down here in Dixie we still are sincere about being sincere. I can't help it if yall let ol'Slick willy ruin sincerety for you, but he don't bother me."

Anything that deviates from truth is anti-christ, Christ is the Truth.

And Christ spoke Aramaic. We must be anti-Christ for speaking such a mongrel language.

Slang is not natural, it is the offspring of illiteracy.

So is your assumption that all language change is due to illiteracy?

Illiteracy is bathed in ignorance. It is ignorance of the meanings of words that leads to deception on the behalf of the more learned and practiced at the art of deception. If you want us to give up what is more pure and certain for that which is less understood, tough, we're not going to budge.

I'll take today's language any day of the week. We have 750,000 different words in which we can communicate. That's more words than any other language in the history of the world. I don't believe that language has somehow become impure. Instead, it has flourished.

My question, again, is if the language of the KJV is the pure language, what are you doing using all of that ignorant, illiterate, anti-Christ slang?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Don't make a sport of words while discussing Biblical principles by dragging the world's devices and definitions into play.

And who do you think invented the English language in the first place? Here's a hint...

...it was the world...

By the way, the world also "invented" the Greek language that was used to transmit the NT. Even Jesus used worly devices and definitions to share His love - look at the parables.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Then you should explain without your prejudice what "left-handed" meant then and not that he is, or even was considered sinister because of his being left handed.

Your presenting a lost cause to try and justify change from what is first peacable, then pure.

"Left handed" means to be opposed to Christ, seated at the "Right Hand" of The Father. And that is just one simple understanding Biblically.

It is that kind of thinking that brought so much pain and misery to left-handed people. That somehow that are opposed to Christ because they call themselves left-handed is about as low as one could possibly go theologically and intellectually. Where do you get this stuff?

(One must wonder that if one is on the left side of the Father, that's still a pretty good deal, since they're not in Hell, but I'm just thinking aloud.)

 

[Precepts]

Really? Please show us how sincere has a different definition now due to slang.

Yall are the ones who said sincere wasn't a good word for pure, uh, it means pure.

You certainly jest.

How so? Who defines language? If there is a perfect language, and the KJV is that perfect language, then what are you doing using all that slang? Or have you forgotten that earlier in the thread you said, and I quote, "I'm sorry, guys yall can dote about all you want, but down here in Dixie we still are sincere about being sincere. I can't help it if yall let ol'Slick willy ruin sincerety for you, but he don't bother me."

Sorry, I'm settled on the language and have to learn all the new terms to understand what you are saying, that isn't progression, it's deviation.

And Christ spoke Aramaic. We must be anti-Christ for speaking such a mongrel language

So I see you still need to learn the difference of a language from another and a deviation of a language.

So is your assumption that all language change is due to illiteracy?

No, I think it is something akin to illiteracy to twist what I say into something so contrary. Stick to the term in question and quite rationalising due to your generalizing the subject matter

I'll take today's language any day of the week. We have 750,000 different words in which we can communicate. That's more words than any other language in the history of the world. I don't believe that language has somehow become impure. Instead, it has flourished.

You do? I would have to say you've floundered. There is nothing new under the sun and only the words we add that define new inventions and discoveries rank a new term. Besides, you boast of 750 G's, but I seriously doubt you have the handle on more than 3 or 4,000 at best, that's w/o a dictionary. If you think otherwise, you may start to confirm now by giving us 750,000 and those w/o the same meaning.

My question, again, is if the language of the KJV is the pure language, what are you doing using all of that ignorant, illiterate, anti-Christ slang?

Ah! So you see the effects of the language becoming more and more confusing. The simplicity in Christ is to remain within the realm of knowledge instead of mutating into some sort of creature akin to the beast.

Your assumptions still reamin in the perversion of your mind. I said slang terms are akin to anti-christ and you take that and twist it to mean that all I say is slang. Oh, well, so much for an intelligent conversation.

 

[rsr]

Oh, well, so much for an intelligent conversation.

Sorry, we haven't had one since you started spewing.

Your view of language is, well, unique.

Words change over time; there is no perfect language unless you are a Muslim or a medieval Latin Rite adherent. Can you deny this without resorting to silliness?

 

[Precepts]

It is that kind of thinking that brought so much pain and misery to left-handed people. That somehow that are opposed to Christ because they call themselves left-handed is about as low as one could possibly go theologically and intellectually. Where do you get this stuff?

(One must wonder that if one is on the left side of the Father, that's still a pretty good deal, since they're not in Hell, but I'm just thinking aloud.)

Why are you left-handed in this conversation? Is it you want to hide the truth?

Why wouldn't you use the accurate term, mr scholar? The correct term for him and w/o offense is left-dexterous.

Why do you allude to such inconsistencies when all the while if you looked up "left-handed" you will see it is stil;l in use as in the negative sense of deceiving. Uh, you been smoking left-handed cigarettes? Not necessarilly rolled by left dexterous people.

 

[rsr]

Uh, you been smoking left-handed cigarettes? Not necessarilly rolled by left dexterous people.

There you go. Argument settled by absurdity. What more can you ask?

BTW: This is an excellent example of the changes in language. There is no "left-dexterous" in English. "Dexterous" means "right handed." However, English has adopted "ambidexterous" as meaning "equally adept with both hands," which is not the literal meaning of the word, which is more akin to "two right hands."

 

[Precepts]

left-handed

\Left"-hand`ed\, a. 1. Having the left hand or arm stronger and more dexterous than the right; using the left hand and arm with more dexterity than the right.

2. Clumsy; awkward; unlucky; insincere; sinister; malicious; as, a left-handed compliment.

The commendations of this people are not always left-handed and detractive. --Landor.

3. Having a direction contrary to that of the hands of a watch when seen in front; -- said of a twist, a rotary motion, etc., looked at from a given direction.


DUH!

Absurdity!

 

[Precepts]

http://www.humanneuro.physiol.umu.se/

Here, contact Roland Johanson if you really want to talk dexterity

 

[Ed Edwards]

If the English of the KJV was a perfect language,
then tell me why I cannot even use the vulgar word
on this board which is found in these verses:

1Sa 25:22
1Sa 25:34
1Ki 14:10
1Ki 16:11
1Ki 21:21
2Ki 9:8
2 Kings 18:27
Isaiah 36:12

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Since the original question has been answered (I think) and the discussion has denegrated to unfruitful conversation, I'm going to close this thread. Feel free to carry on in a new thread.