King James Problem Words

[sag38]

Saying that, I do not think we need to be compelled to use words, phrases, and grammar that are not in normal use today. I don't think the 21st century reader should have to consult a dictionary when he is doing his Bible reading or devotional study.

Good point. In a particular study Bible I use from time to time archaic words are translated for me in the middle. Why not go ahead and render the word in a format that I can understand instead of referring me to a note explaining its meaning?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Imagine what it would look like if the KJVOs took the same amount of time they take trying to combat the MVs and used it to study the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages so they could study and know the truth.

I don't recall an instance on this forum where I have tried to combat the modern versions. If you can find a place please call it to my attention......Perhaps I will repent of it.

What I have tried to do is defend the KJV against false allegations of error in this forum. You don't see it that way? NO. Well, fair enough.

I make no claim of being an expert in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. (Do we know any Aramaic experts?) However, I have studied some Greek and know how to use the reference materials. That study is one of the things that gradually lead me away from the modern versions.

Now I don't actually care what Bible version you use. That is a decision between you and THE LORD. I would, however, prefer to worship in a Church where I don't have to guess what the Pastor (or another) is reading from. I once did a bit of comparative version reading. I am tired of that and would prefer to avoid confusion.

 

[gb93433]

This is tough. I wasn't saved until I was 18 and did not grow up in a Christian home, plus that was been 34 years.

You really are an old man.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

While we are on problem words we should talk about GRACE.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– NIV

Just how are we saved by "beauty and charm"?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Excuse me. I should have quoted from the KJV in my last post -since this is a KJV problem word, and a NIV problem word and an almost any version you care to name - problem word.

 

[Rippon]

While we are on problem words we should talk about GRACE.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– NIV

Just how are we saved by "beauty and charm"?

So the word "grace" has been redefined by you as "beauty and charm" ? What kind of offbeat interpretation is that ?!

 

[Rippon]

What I have tried to do is defend the KJV against false allegations of error in this forum. You don't see it that way? NO. Well, fair enough.

Are there ANY errors in the KJV according to you ?

 

[Palatka51]

I don't recall an instance on this forum where I have tried to combat the modern versions. If you can find a place please call it to my attention......Perhaps I will repent of it.

What I have tried to do is defend the KJV against false allegations of error in this forum. You don't see it that way? NO. Well, fair enough.

I make no claim of being an expert in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. (Do we know any Aramaic experts?) However, I have studied some Greek and know how to use the reference materials. That study is one of the things that gradually lead me away from the modern versions.

Now I don't actually care what Bible version you use. That is a decision between you and THE LORD. I would, however, prefer to worship in a Church where I don't have to guess what the Pastor (or another) is reading from. I once did a bit of comparative version reading. I am tired of that and would prefer to avoid confusion.

I hope that you wouldn't mind if I stand with you in this issue.

 

[gb93433]

What I have tried to do is defend the KJV against false allegations of error in this forum. You don't see it that way? NO. Well, fair enough.

There has never been a perfect translation of any document. It is impossible. You cannot translate culture. The accurate meaning of words sit in the context of a particualr culture. So it is with the Bible. Translation requires interpretation.

The KJV was translated by those who believed in pedobaptism. It is obvious that they never translated the Greek word in the normal way they transliterated it. In doing that they avoided the translation issue being in conflict with their doctrine of pedobaptism.

 

[Jerome]

It is obvious that they never translated the Greek word in the normal way they transliterated it.

Stop casting aspersion on the Translators. :laugh: They had no aspersionist bias. In fact, the Book of Common Prayer used in 1611 defines baptism as dipping. It was the Westminster Presbyterians' 1644 Directory for the Public Worship of God that (temporarily) censored immersion language from the Church of England ritual.

 

[gb93433]

Stop casting aspersion on the Translators. They had no aspersionist bias. In fact, the Book of Common Prayer used in 1611 defines baptism as dipping. It was the Westminster Presbyterians' 1644 Directory for the Public Worship of God that (temporarily) censored immersion language from the Church of England ritual.

So are you saying that the KJV 1611 translators always translated baptizo as dip, immerse, or wash?

I see no evidence of that. What I do see is that in every case they used the word baptize.

When I go online and see what claims to be a 1611 KJV I see the word baptize. Are you saying that what claims to be a KJV 1611 is not, but a revision done in 1644?

 

[Jerome]

There was no "conspiracy" by the Translators to obscure the immersion meaning of baptism. In the Church of England, paedobaptism was by immersion, as the Book of Common Prayer makes clear: the priest was to "dippe it in the water".

 

[gb93433]

There was no "conspiracy" by the Translators to obscure the immersion meaning of baptism. In the Church of England, paedobaptism was by immersion, as the Book of Common Prayer makes clear: the priest was to "dippe it in the water".

The KJV uses the word baptize. The word for baptize goes way back before Christianity in Judaism. If the Anglicans immersed believers then why transliterate a word rather than translate it as was was done throughout the course of history in Judaism, Christianity, and in the common usage in the everyday world. What was the need to transliterate the word rather than translate the word when it was not ever done before.

 

[Jerome]

What was the need to transliterate the word rather than translate the word when it was not ever done before.

The Translators did not "refuse" to translate the word. They did not deviously endeavor to mislead by transliteration. There was no need to, since the prescribed method of baptism in the Church of England was immersion. The word baptize had by 1611 been a common English word for several centuries, meaning a religious/ceremonial immersion in water.
Nearly all modern versions use "baptize" rather than "immerse in water".

 

[gb93433]

The Translators did not "refuse" to translate the word. They did not deviously endeavor to mislead by transliteration. There was no need to, since the prescribed method of baptism in the Church of England was immersion. The word baptize had by 1611 been a common English word for several centuries, meaning a religious/ceremonial immersion in water.
Nearly all modern versions use "baptize" rather than "immerse in water".

If they were true to the Greek text then why did they transliterate the common word which meant to dip, immerse, and wash as baptize when that was not done with other words? Though there are times when they actually translated the word as wash, etc.

Nearly all versions follow a past tradition. I have come across some rather interesting things when doing textual criticism that do not fit in with tradition.

 

[Logos1560]

The Translators did not "refuse" to translate the word. .

According to the preface of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators considered "baptism" to be one of the "old ecclesiastical words" that they were ordered or instructed to keep according to rule 3 given the translators [The old ecclesiastical words to be kept].

Some of the early English Bibles seem to have used "baptize" and "christen" as synonyms or they at least used "christen" instead of "baptize." The old 1380's Wycliffe's Bible had "christen" in some verses.
Even Tyndale's 1534 New Testament and the 1537 Matthew's Bible have "christen" at 1 Corinthians 1:14.

Which rendering do you think more clearly indicates immersion at Matthew 3:11: "baptize you in water" as found in Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Great, and Bishops' or "baptize you with water" as found in the KJV?

 

[Jerome]

According to the preface of the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators considered "baptism" to be one of the "old ecclesiastical words" that they were ordered or instructed to keep according to rule 3 given the translators [The old ecclesiastical words to be kept].

So the translators didn't make up that word by transliteration to cover up their practice of sprinkling.:thumbs:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

So the word "grace" has been redefined by you as "beauty and charm" ? What kind of offbeat interpretation is that ?!

So, maybe the first definition in the dictionary isn't always the best one?

Well duh!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Are there ANY errors in the KJV according to you ?

I will say that you fellows haven't proven to me that there are errors in the KJV.

A.F.

 

[EdSutton]

I will say that you fellows haven't proven to me that there are errors in the KJV.

A.F.

You now have the privilege of become the third individual to whom I make this simple, 3 word request.

Define error, please.

Incidentally, I do not recall attempting to "prove" any 'errors', in any version, at least up until now, FTR.

Ed