1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is updating archaic words wrong?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, May 11, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Pastor MHG:robycop3,

    Funny part is...that's your response. You guys make the claims about the outdated language (which has been proven to be a very weak argument)

    Weak ONLY to the cats who have no legitimate response.


    and then when confronted with the facts you have nothing to say.

    I'm not avoiding the facts. There are many words in use today in older Bibles whose meanings have changed drastically over the last several centuries. The AV was written in the best English of its time, but that time is long past. And I see nothing wrong with updating the archaic language into that of TODAY.

    The subject will get changed and then you guys will accuse us of being afraid to respond and running away. Same old stuff.

    Actually, that's a KJVO tactic. For example, I've asked many a KJVO for many a year how they propose to justify their myth in the face of its having ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, not even from the KJV itself, and they waffle more than a shelf full of Bisquick.

    BTW, you are right that God did not retire in 1611...the Holy Spirit is still very actively involved in teaching believers the truth form their precious old AV.

    Actually, it's the KJV which is the fave OLD Bible in English. The AV is used mostly for study, and not over-used at that. And don't try to tell me the AV and KJV are one-and-the-same...I have copies of each, and I KNOW BETTER.

    Also, the Holy Spirit is busy teaching from many other English versions as well.(Not to mention, from versions in many other languages!)
     
    #41 robycop3, May 19, 2005
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Philip Mauro, a defender of the KJV, wrote: "We do not fail to recognize, what is admitted by all competent authorities, that the A. V. could be corrected in a number of passages where the meaning is now obscured because of changes which three centuries have brought about in the meaning of English words, or where diligent study or recent discoveries have brought to light better readings" (Fuller, TRUE OR FALSE, pp. 101-102).

    KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: "I do believe that there a places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date" (MYTHS ABOUT THE KJB: MYTH FOUR, p. 16).

    If KJV-only advocates know how to translate some places more clearly and how to update the archaic words, why don't they do it?
     
    #42 Logos1560, May 19, 2005
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Logos 1560: If KJV-only advocates know how to translate some places more clearly and how to update the archaic words, why don't they do it?

    Because that would go against their false doctrine, which is apparently more important to many of them than is the TRUTH.
     
    #43 robycop3, May 21, 2005
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
     
    #44 Logos1560, May 25, 2005
  5. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did not ask the AV translators these questions... I asked you!

    Max
     
    #45 PASTOR MHG, May 25, 2005
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We must not forget that the versions named above were NOT archaic when they were published. However, it would be silly to make a new publication in archaic language unless it was for a specific purpose such as teaching that archaic language.

    Can't speak for Logos, of course, but as for myself - I am not qualified to make such an update.
     
    #46 robycop3, May 26, 2005
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,608
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Evidence has already been provided that shows that there are more than a "few" archaic words in the KJV. I have studied the meaning of them so your statement above is inaccurate.

    The updating of some of the KJV's spelling and updating of some archaic words has already been done several times. If the updating in the 1782 first American edition of the KJV, the updating of the 1833 edition by Noah Webster, the updating of the 1842 edition by doctrinally-sound Baptists,
    the updating of the 1850 KJV's N. T. with emendations by Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff, the updating in the American Bible Society's edition of the KJV, etc. had been more widely adopted by publishers, there would have likely been much less need or demand for new English translations. At least two of the KJV translators themselves were involved in some revising and updating of the KJV in a later edition only 10 to 20 years after the 1611. I have examined several editions of the KJV printed in the early 1800's and have found that they have some updated spelling and revisions that are not in most present editions of the KJV except for the American Bible Society's edition and perhaps a couple others. Is it possible that some or even many publishers in the late 1800's or early 1900's went back to an older edition of the KJV in order to encourage or enhance the perceived need for new English translations?

    I don't know how long a valid updating would last since the English language keeps changing.
    Of course, at some point, it would need to be done again by believing Bible scholars.
     
    #47 Logos1560, May 29, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...