Kjvp

[Rippon]

Hi Rippon, please provide a list of translations of logos that I have not addressed.

The last list I posted was in my post number 47 where I listed 24 term which you did not address.

Bottom line, there is no good reason for translating logos with more than 30 different English words, when 6 or 7 would do the job.

More than two dozen would do a much better job.

This would reduce overlap where the same English word is used to translate differing Greek words,

We were speaking of the word logos. In various translations numerous English terms are used in translated that word. We were not talking about one English word trasnslating different Greek words.

 

[Logos1560]

By the way...things that are different are not the same...Ya just can't have it both ways. A perfect, just, righteous and holy God is not gonna leave His holy Word to the whims, fancy's, and corruptions or imperfections of lost (or saved) men and women. He has protected it's inspiration, preservation, transmission, and translation into the various languages down over the years and we have it as He intended for us to have it in perfect form today whether you or others believe it or know it or not.

The KJV is not the same as any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. There are some textual differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles. There are many, many translational differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

Are you suggesting that God did not protect the translation of the Scriptures into English before 1611?

The English text of the 1611 edition of the KJV is not the same as the English text in any present KJV edition today [besides the 1611 reprint editions]. Are you suggesting that the 1611 KJV is different than present KJV's since they are not the same?

Which one of the varying editions of the KJV is the one in the perfect form today?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A Question For You....

The KJV is not the same as any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles. There are some textual differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles. There are many, many translational differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision.

Are you suggesting that God did not protect the translation of the Scriptures into English before 1611?

The English text of the 1611 edition of the KJV is not the same as the English text in any present KJV edition today [besides the 1611 reprint editions]. Are you suggesting that the 1611 KJV is different than present KJV's since they are not the same?

Which one of the varying editions of the KJV is the one in the perfect form today?

Rick, I have an honest question for you since you seem to present yourself as the "resident all things KJV expert" (and I don't presume or suggest that I am anywhere close to being one).....Have the updates that have been done to the POST-1611 KJV editions been just about updated spellings or possibly punctuations or have they actually CHANGED THE WORDING of the verses? Have the word updates from say...1611 to 1769 (for instance) actually changed the words which the KJV translators used in their text (which in turn might actually alter the meaning) of the verses or passages in which they appear in? In my opinion...as long as the original (to the KJV) words were "retained" in the updating process then I think it is reasonable to say that we (as KJVO's) can have confidence in the current edition of the KJV that we use.
I would be interested to see anywhere where "modern" updating of the KJV, in modern editions of IT have actually changed the wording employed by the KJV translators. If you know this...then let the "cut and paste" routine begin. One word changed to another word with a different meaning....those are the only ones I am interested in...okay? I don't personally know of any but I do believe if anybody on this board would probably know of any, it might be YOU. By the way...in answer to your question....I believe the KJV I hold in my hand is faithful to the 1611 edition and thus perfect (as compared to the many MV's available today)...as I see it. That's my answer about that.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Logos1560]

.Have the updates that have been done to the POST-1611 KJV editions been just about updated spellings or possibly punctuations or have they actually CHANGED THE WORDING of the verses? Have the word updates from say...1611 to 1769 (for instance) actually changed the words which the KJV translators used in their text (which in turn might actually alter the meaning) of the verses or passages in which they appear in?

I would be interested to see anywhere where "modern" updating of the KJV, in modern editions of IT have actually changed the wording employed by the KJV translators.

One word changed to another word with a different meaning

I don't personally know of any

Examples of differences where there is a difference in meaning have been presented before at this forum so that you should be aware of some.

The fact was also pointed out that present KJV edition add over 140 words not found in the 1611 edition, and omit 45 words that were found in the 1611. Is not the adding or omitting of words a change in wording?

There is a difference in meaning between a noun [singular in number] and a noun [plural in number]. Over 60 times the number [singular/plural] of nouns or pronouns was changed.

Leviticus 17:14
ye shall not eat the blood of no maner of flesh {1611 KJV}
ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh (present KJV's)

2 Kings 24:19 [different person, different king named in 1611 compared to present KJV]
Jehoiachin {1611 KJV}
Jehoiakim (present KJV's)

1 Kings 11:5 [different group of people named in 1611 compared to present KJV]
Amorites {1611 KJV}
Ammonites (present KJV's)

Ezekiel 24:7
powred it upon {1611 KJV}
poured it not upon (present KJV's)

1 Samuel 13:11 [see 1 Sam. 11:5 which shows that Philistines were already in Michmash]
to Michmash {1611 KJV}
at Michmash (present KJV's)

Numbers 6:14
and one lamb {1611 KJV}
and one ram (present KJV's)

Number 20:7 [different name of God indicated--Adonai vs Jehovah]
Lord {1611 KJV}
LORD (present KJV's)

Deuteronomy 26:1
the LORD {1611 KJV}
the LORD thy God (present KJV's)

Joshua 5:14
my Lord {1611 KJV}
my lord (many present KJV editions)

Zechariah 6:4
my LORD {1611 KJV)
my lord (present KJV's)

Genesis 39:16
her lord {1611 KJV}
his lord (present KJV's)

Jeremiah 49:1
God {1611 KJV}
Gad (present KJV's)

Jeremiah 52:31
Jehoiakin {1611 KJV}
Jehoiachin (present KJV's)

Psalm 69:32
seek good {1611 KJV}
seek God (present KJV's)

Ezekiel 1:2
Jehoiakins {1611 KJV}
Jehoiachin's (present KJV's)

1 Corinthians 12:28
helps in governments {1611 KJV}
helps, governments (most present KJV's)

1 Timothy 1:4
edifying {1611 KJV}
godly edifying (present KJV's)

Malachi 1:8
And if he offer {1611 KJV}
And if ye offer (present KJV's)

1 Kings 8:61
your God {1611 KJV}
our God (present KJV's)

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the KJV I hold in my hand is faithful to the 1611 edition and thus perfect

Which is the specific edition of the KJV that you are holding in your hands?

There are varying editions of the KJV available that you could have.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which is the specific edition of the KJV that you are holding in your hands?

There are varying editions of the KJV available that you could have.

Where was the word of God before the Kjv edition was published?

 

[Rippon]

Rick, I have an honest question for you. Have the updates that have been done to the POST-1611 KJV editions been just about updated spellings or possibly punctuations or have they actually CHANGED THE WORDING of the verses? Have the word updates from say...1611 to 1769 (for instance) actually changed the words which the KJV translators used in their text (which in turn might actually alter the meaning) of the verses or passages in which they appear in?

How "honest" of a question was that? You claim to have read his posts, yet you ask that kind of question?

in answer to your question....I believe the KJV I hold in my hand is faithful to the 1611 edition and thus perfect (as compared to the many MV's available today)...as I see it.

You have a most fascinating way of interpreting the word perfect. Hmmm..."perfect as compared to the many modern versions." Did you mean "better" than modern versions? One can't compare something perfect with something imperfect. You could contrast them though.

You illogic thinks that the 1611 edition was perfect and yet the 1769 edition,though different in significant ways retains perfection because it is essentially faithful to the earlier model. You hold a more modern version in your hands that has been revised from the 1611 edition. Can something perfect be revised and yet still remain perfect? Perhaps you need to come up with with a term like "essentially perfect". LOL! Your perfect version had to be improved. Think about that.

It is interesting that no other Bible translation has adherents who claim perfection for their version --updated with differnces from the original notwithstanding.

What perfect version of the Bible existed before the advent of the KJVs? If they weren't perfect did they possess perfectionistic qualities?:laugh:

The possibilities for more questions on this line of your thinking is endless.

 

[Yeshua1]

How "honest" of a question was that? You claim to have read his posts, yet you ask that kind of question?



You have a most fascinating way of interpreting the word perfect. Hmmm..."perfect as compared to the many modern versions." Did you mean "better" than modern versions? One can't compare something perfect with something imperfect. You could contrast them though.

You illogic thinks that the 1611 edition was perfect and yet the 1769 edition,though different in significant ways retains perfection because it is essentially faithful to the earlier model. You hold a more modern version in your hands that has been revised from the 1611 edition. Can something perfect be revised and yet still remain perfect? Perhaps you need to come up with with a term like "essentially perfect". LOL! Your perfect version had to be improved. Think about that.

It is interesting that no other Bible translation has adherents who claim perfection for their version --updated with differnces from the original notwithstanding.

What perfect version of the Bible existed before the advent of the KJVs? If they weren't perfect did they possess perfectionistic qualities?:laugh:

The possibilities for more questions on this line of your thinking is endless.

How can we claim perfection for ANY version of the Bible, since we no longer have the originals that were perfect to compare against?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A Brief Answer...

Which is the specific edition of the KJV that you are holding in your hands?

There are varying editions of the KJV available that you could have.

Rick, the 3 prime copies of the scriptures that I use are an older Collins edition, a Cambridge printing of the 1769 edition and an Oxford Old Scofield edition. I also have one of those 400th anniversary reprints of the 1611 by Zondervan that I purchased at Walmart. The changes you listed above that I checked all jived with the list you have posted above and I do find it interesting and worthy of consideration. For the time being I will withhold my opinion on the matter because I am not currently knowledgable enough on the subject to comment in a coherent manner. I am, at the moment, consulting with some folks I have a large amount of respect for who are more knowledgable than I on these matters. I still believe my position is correct and (no disrespect intended) I am deeply distrustful of any person or source that would try to convince me that there are "mistakes" or "mis-translations" or errors in my Bible. I love the God of the Word and the Word of God and I believe both to be inseparable and perfect. As for the "snarky" comments of some of the subsequent posters in this thread I shall simply ignore them by not dignifying them with a response. At least you seem to post things for the most part in a dignified and civilized manner....whether I agree with you or not I can at least respect that.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Van]

Answer
Appearance
Book
Complaint
Conversation
Credit

Ground
Justify
Message
News
Remark
Report

Retort
Sentence
Speaking
Statement
Story
Talking

Teaching
Testimony
That
What (was spoken)
Why
Word of Mouth

I do not see where you provided the reference to the scripture book, chapter and verse. I did spend a few minutes to find "answer" at Mark 7:29.

But if you are unwilling or unable to provide specific references, then I repeat, I have responded to more than a dozen examples where you claimed one of my words would not work contextually, and they all did. Willy nilly translation is not "better," it is the work of lazy, ignorant translators.

 

[Logos1560]

the 3 prime copies of the scriptures that I use are an older Collins edition, a Cambridge printing of the 1769 edition and an Oxford Old Scofield edition.

I have examined some Collins editions of the KJV: the 1791 Isaac Collins edition, a 1879 William Collins edition printed in London, a 1866 William Collins edition printed in Glasgow, Scotland, a Collins' Clear-Type Press edition with a 1910 license date, a Collins' Clear-Type Press edition with a 1957 license date, a Collins' Clear-Type Press edition with a 1958 license date, and a Collins World [1975]. On the copyright page of your Collins edition, does it give information that includes a license date?

Which Cambridge edition? Is there any Cambridge edition that is 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition? In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV. Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton.

The pre-1996 old Scofield Reference Bible had some unique or different renderings that could be said to characterize it [“and all that” (Lev. 14:36), “And when thou dost” (Deut. 24:10), “hastened” (1 Sam. 17:48), “people of the men” (2 Sam. 16:15), “the Lord“ (1 Kings 8:56, Jer. 32:26), “anything” (Rom. 8:33), “lusteth” (Rev. 18:14), “burnt-offerings” (Gen. 8:20)]. The Scofield Study Bible edition identified as "classic edition" may have the same KJV text as the old Scofield Reference Bible, but the Scofield Study Bible edition that has an additional 1996 copyright along with the earlier ones such as 1909, 1917, 1945 has a different KJV text with as many as 50 changes.

 

[Logos1560]

By the way...things that are different are not the same...Ya just can't have it both ways.

I believe the KJV I hold in my hand is faithful to the 1611 edition and thus perfect

the 3 prime copies of the scriptures that I use are an older Collins edition, a Cambridge printing of the 1769 edition and an Oxford Old Scofield edition.

If there are any differences at all in those three editions of the KJV, they would not be the same according to your own stated reasoning.

According to your own arguments, could three differing editions of the KJV that are not the same be equally perfect in those places where they differ? Are you trying to have it both ways?

 

[Rippon]

So Van has expanded his initial hard and fast list of 5, to then 6 or 7 and presently 8. You will be stretching your minimum in the near future I predict.

I still would like to know a single translation that has used the word maxim for the translation of logos.

 

[Rippon]

I have personally never read one verse in any other version of the scriptures (and I do have numerous other translations that I occasionally use for comparative purposes) that I found that was translated better or preferable over my KJV.

That claim has absolutely no merit. You are just evidencing your "perfectionistic tendencies".

Try 2 Sam. 19:38 for example. In the KJV it reads :"With me doth Chimham go over, and I do to him that which is good in thine eyes, yeah, all that thou dost fix on me I do to thee."

In the NIV we read : "Kimham shall cross over with me. And I will do for him whatever you wish. And anything you desire from me I will do for you."

It is obvious that the NIV reading is superior --why not admit the obvious?

 

[Rippon]

Mark l. Straus wrote a paper on the "Literal Meaning" Fallacy.

Here is a portion from page 31 :"Traditional church language, canonized by the King James Version and its revisions, can become so staid and familiar that it has little impact on churchgoers who have heard it all their lives. For many, reading a contemporary version brings the Bible to life by piercing through the traditional language 'domesticated; through familiarity. Witnes for example the rhetorical power of J.B. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English..."

Strauss quotes Dick France : "The colloquial language employed by Tyndale so that the Scriptures would be accessible to the ploughboy has thus become, with the passing of time, the esoteric language of religion, and the more remote it becomes from ordinary speech the more special and holy it seems."

 

[Yeshua1]

Mark l. Straus wrote a paper on the "Literal Meaning" Fallacy.

Here is a portion from page 31 :"Traditional church language, canonized by the King James Version and its revisions, can become so staid and familiar that it has little impact on churchgoers who have heard it all their lives. For many, reading a contemporary version brings the Bible to life by piercing through the traditional language 'domesticated; through familiarity. Witnes for example the rhetorical power of J.B. Phillips' New Testament in Modern English..."

Strauss quotes Dick France : "The colloquial language employed by Tyndale so that the Scriptures would be accessible to the ploughboy has thus become, with the passing of time, the esoteric language of religion, and the more remote it becomes from ordinary speech the more special and holy it seems."

Do they hold to the verbal plenary view of the scriptures though?

The correct way to see it!

 

[Rippon]

That claim has absolutely no merit. You are just evidencing your "perfectionistic tendencies".

Try 2 Sam. 19:38 for example. In the KJV it reads :"With me doth Chimham go over, and I do to him that which is good in thine eyes, yeah, all that thou dost fix on me I do to thee."

In the NIV we read : "Kimham shall cross over with me. And I will do for him whatever you wish. And anything you desire from me I will do for you."

It is obvious that the NIV reading is superior --why not admit the obvious?

Correction : The quote I said was from the KJV was really from Young's, not the KJV. In the words of Rosana Rosana Danadana -- never mind.

 

[Rippon]

So far six people identified themselves as being KJVP. One is KJVO. Anyone else care to post their category? I would like to pigeon-hole you.

 

[Rippon]

My Perfect Questions

You have a most fascinating way of interpreting the word perfect. Hmmm..."perfect as compared to the many modern versions." Did you mean "better" than modern versions? One can't compare something perfect with something imperfect. You could contrast them though.

You illogic thinks that the 1611 edition was perfect and yet the 1769 edition,though different in significant ways retains perfection because it is essentially faithful to the earlier model. You hold a more modern version in your hands that has been revised from the 1611 edition. Can something perfect be revised and yet still remain perfect? Perhaps you need to come up with with a term like "essentially perfect". LOL! Your perfect version had to be improved. Think about that.

It is interesting that no other Bible translation has adherents who claim perfection for their version --updated with differences from the original notwithstanding.

What perfect version of the Bible existed before the advent of the KJVs? If they weren't perfect did they possess perfectionistic qualities?:laugh:

The possibilities for more questions on this line of your thinking is endless.

A needed revisit.

 

[RIPP0NWV]

So far six people identified themselves as being KJVP. One is KJVO. Anyone else care to post their category? I would like to pigeon-hole you.

On my part, lots of observation and little posting. There are two types of people in this world. Those who build up and those who destroy and tear down. You are the epitome of the second category. It is incredible I choose the town I live in to name me, and you have the same screen name.

Without a doubt, hands down, you are the most destructive and disrespectful poster in this forum.