King James Problem Words

[AntennaFarmer]

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

Error: "a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech:" (dictionary.com def. #1).


You are welcome.

 

[EdSutton]

Error: "a deviation from accuracy or correctness; a mistake, as in action or speech:" (dictionary.com def. #1).


You are welcome.

Thank you for the definition. It is good to get one.

Now I have a question. Are you in fact, claiming verbal infallibility for the KJV? If not, how do you support your apparent thesis that there is 'no error in the translation?' and/or no error in that version?

Uh- and exacrtly which edition are we referring to?

Ed

 

[gb93433]

In any translation there is a loss of meaning partly because the original language has meaning in the context of the culture.

For example we would not use the word murder to explain that someone passed away due to old age and natural causes. So words must be interpreted in order to be translated correctly. Even at that, there are words which do not translate. A translation is most accurate the same day it was translated. From that point on, as words change meaning then the translation becomes more and more archaic and the translation changes meaning which is a deviation from the original translation and the text it was translated from.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Thank you for the definition. It is good to get one.

Now I have a question. Are you in fact, claiming verbal infallibility for the KJV? If not, how do you support your apparent thesis that there is 'no error in the translation?' and/or no error in that version?

Uh- and exacrtly which edition are we referring to?

Ed

I mostly use the 1769 revision of the 1611 translation known as the King James Version.

I am not claiming a special doctrine for the KJV.

I am claiming that the translation is correct and reliable. I think that God had a hand in the translation. That is how it is possible.

I am astounded that a group of Baptists, who believe that God works in their daily lives, would claim that God has no hand in such an important work as the translation of Holy Scripture.



Yes, that is an awful lot of "I" in there!

A.F.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

..... A translation is most accurate the same day it was translated. From that point on, as words change meaning then the translation becomes more and more archaic and the translation changes meaning which is a deviation from the original translation and the text it was translated from.

Well overstated friend!

However, the translation doesn't change meaning with time any more than the original language does.


A.F.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well overstated friend!

However, the translation doesn't change meaning with time any more than the original language does.

When a word changes its meaning people who do not know the original meaning will misunderstand.

Also, in the Bible are many agricultural terms and if a person is not familiar with the agricultural meaning they will also not understand properly.

For instance there is a verse in the bible on controling a horse with a bit. I heard of a sermon preached where the preacher did not know the meaning of bit
as used here and said, "Just a little bite [as in bite] can make a big difference. Just a little bit of food." So, though he was/is seminary trained and a very intelligent fellow he did not understand the verse correctly.

Just in case there are some city folk here, bit = the mouthpiece of a bridle, having fittings at each end to which the reins are fastened.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

When a word changes its meaning people who do not know the original meaning will misunderstand.

Also, in the Bible are many agricultural terms and if a person is not familiar with the agricultural meaning they will also not understand properly.

For instance there is a verse in the bible on controling a horse with a bit. I heard of a sermon preached where the preacher did not know the meaning of bit
as used here and said, "Just a little bite [as in bite] can make a big difference. Just a little bit of food." So, though he was/is seminary trained and a very intelligent fellow he did not understand the verse correctly.

Just in case there are some city folk here, bit = the mouthpiece of a bridle, having fittings at each end to which the reins are fastened.

Unbelievable!

The scripture reference for "bit" in the horse accy. sense is Psa. 32:9
The same term is used in KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT and a bunch more.

"Bit" is used in the other sense in Numbers 21:6. You will find the same usage in the KJV, NKJV, NIV, etc.

This is a good example of a word that has not changed.

What I am seeing here is that no matter the choice of words someone will get it wrong.

 

[gb93433]

Well overstated friend!

However, the translation doesn't change meaning with time any more than the original language does.


A.F.

The original manuscripts of the NT have not changed but many words in modern English are constantly changing.

The funniest thing is that I have never heward a KJVO preacher speak ot his congregation in KJVO English. He always uses modern English in his sermons. In fact I have heard many preachers give the meanings of archaic words in the KJV in modern English. If those KJV words had not changed there would be no need to define those words.

For example if youy talked about a computer forty years ago it was not a tool that wrote words on a page in a digital form. It was a calculator.

 

[Salamander]

You cannot enhance the word of God. It is what it is--God's word. Al you can do is study it to find out what God communicated.

So you see no need to study the Originals then.

Remember why there are southern and northern Baptists.

Because of petty differences?

I seriously doubt that slaves became Christians because of slavery but rather because of the gospel.

And without being brought to America and other Gospel preaching nations many would still be lost in heathenism.

 

[Salamander]

If one were to use much of the same reasoning of the KJVOs they would have to admit their Bible is horribly translated because there are so many words left out of the most excellent translations that preceded it. They would have to admit that they are liberals because they use the KJV which omits words that were purposely used in previous translations.

Care to discuss those purposes those words were directing at the time?

 

[Salamander]

My parents knew nothing about the Bible but they had one in the house on the table. One day when I was by myself I picked up the family Bible and tried reading it only to quickly realize I understood almost nothing. I did not read a Bible for about 7 years later. I tried reading that same Bible again and came to the same conclusion as I had before. Shortly after that, I encountered a Living Bible and read it for about 15 to 30 minutes each day. Later I bought an NAS.

You tell me, is it better to let a translation sit and collect dust that you do not understand or read one that you do understand? Is it better to look at a Bible that you know you do not understand or is it better to read a translation for 15-30 minutes each day that you do understand?

It is a no-brainer for anyone to know which Bible God used first in my life.

I always thought it was the Lord who is the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart and it takes the Spirit to reveal what the word of God says, y'know, just like where the word of God says the things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned.:godisgood:

I believe it is far better that one realize their need of the Saviour and then the Bible can be understood as the Spirit leads them into all truth, y'know, just like the word of God says he will lead them.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

I don't think the 21st century reader should have to consult a dictionary when he is doing his Bible reading or devotional study.

But the 21st century reader had best consult a dictionary to understand the context so he isn't led astray by his inept or ignorant view of the word of God.

 

[Salamander]

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.

Thank YOU!

I once heard Chuck Swindol tell his congregation to all read a verse in unison from "whatever version you have, I don't care" on a radio broadcast. Talk about a very confusing sound!

 

[Salamander]

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.

OK, so you make the same inconsistant allegations which proves to be error.

Since you accuse the KJB of having been translated in this fashion and you object, show us just ONE instance where they promoted pedo-baptism in the text?

 

[Salamander]

When a word changes its meaning people who do not know the original meaning will misunderstand.

Also, in the Bible are many agricultural terms and if a person is not familiar with the agricultural meaning they will also not understand properly.

For instance there is a verse in the bible on controling a horse with a bit. I heard of a sermon preached where the preacher did not know the meaning of bit
as used here and said, "Just a little bite [as in bite] can make a big difference. Just a little bit of food." So, though he was/is seminary trained and a very intelligent fellow he did not understand the verse correctly.

Just in case there are some city folk here, bit = the mouthpiece of a bridle, having fittings at each end to which the reins are fastened.

Since you believe the Bible should be "fitted" into the vernacular of the present individual, which is made up of many variances in culture and the mainstream today is overemphasized with sexuality and the drug/gangsta mentality, would you promote a version in the common street language so today's person could better understand the Bible?

Doing so would limit the word of God by only being intellectualy understood and thus write the Spirit of God out of the wording.

This very reason of thought is what we who stand on the KJB for the English speaking people know is a tool to undermine society in a degrading of the English language demanded by the immoral culture we see advancing daily. Throwing it violently downhill into such a decline which only the Second Coming of Christ will adherently correct!:godisgood:

 

[gb93433]

Since you accuse the KJB of having been translated in this fashion and you object, show us just ONE instance where they promoted pedo-baptism in the text?

It promotes much more than that.

Anything one produces is a product of their belief. Read the Greek NT and translate it for yourself and you will see. You cannot translate anything without interpretation. Every translation has biases because of the people doing the interpretation and translation.

Study your Greek NT, the doctrine of the Church of England, then read the KJV and then you will see it more. Without knowing that, it is unlikely you would notice.

Would you trust yourself to a translator who is not an evangelical and baptizes babies?

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Well overstated friend!

However, the translation doesn't change meaning with time any more than the original language does.


A.F.

But it does. The translations, all of them, are in living languages like English. English changes from year to year and generation to generation. But the original languages are all "dead" languages. Biblical Hebrew is biblical Hebrew and means the same thing today it meant 1000 years ago, the same goes for Greek and Aramaic. These languages are not spoken today. They are dead languages that do not change in meaning from year to year.

 

[gb93433]

OK, so you make the same inconsistant allegations which proves to be error.

Let me just give you two real easy Spanish words to translate. Ask someone who speaks Spanish to translate Como estas and Como esta with absolute accuracy.

From your Bible, translate John 21:15-17 with absolute accuracy and no loss of meaning.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Doing so would limit the word of God by only being intellectualy understood and thus write the Spirit of God out of the wording.

Huh?

Can you explain this statement. Honestly, I just don't understand what you are saying. Do you mean that even though people will hear and understand God's word that the Holy Spirit will somehow be limited? That just does not make sense to me.

 

[gb93433]

Doing so would limit the word of God by only being intellectualy understood and thus write the Spirit of God out of the wording.

Until a person applies James 1:22 then he will not understand any more than the words on a page. So if you want to experience the mysteries of God then you must apply the entirety of the word.

James 1 :22, "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves."