Language changing demands a new version?

[Keith M]

Would it not be best to understand the former defintion, in context, to render the topic discussion fruitful when teaching, preaching, or just personal studying, the Bible?

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?:smilewinkgrin:

This means we should all be going back to the earliest English Bible versions. There is no reason to update the language, and that includes "modern versions" like the KJV of 1611.

Try this on for size, Salamander...

For God louede so the world, that he yaf his `oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in him perische not, but haue euerlastynge lijf. John 3:16 The Wycliffe Bible (1395)

Now are you so certain there is no place for "modern versions," Salamander? This means that the Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Bishops' Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1587) and the King James Version (1611 and later revisions) are all modern versions, and that there is no need for any of them. After all, the Wycliffe Bible came first in English, and apparently there was no need to update it according to your line of reasoning.

Salamander, it seems sometimes you need to actually consider what you are saying before you post some of these arguments. When it comes right down to it, such arguments as this actually go against the KJVO stance you claim to support.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Stick it in a draw and get a new one.

 

[Keith M]

Stick it in a draw and get a new one.

Huh???????? English please...

 

[David Michael Harris]

Huh???????? English please...

Lol! Tried that and upset some people Just keep the Gospel in todays language, is that so hard to understand?

David

 

[Keith M]

Gotcha, David!

 

[David Michael Harris]

Being Welsh I guess my English is bad at times lol!

David

 

[Mexdeaf]

Stick it in a draw and get a new one.

Draw- [SIZE=-1]a gully that is shallower than a ravine. Also slang for 'drawer'. Am I right?
[/SIZE]

 

[David Michael Harris]

Draw- [SIZE=-1]a gully that is shallower than a ravine. Also slang for 'drawer'. Am I right?
[/SIZE]

Nah, the draw I had in mind is a sliding compartment, where you keep things like knives and forks, but other stuff that you 'do not need' lol!

I used the word 'screw' once and got all sorts of reactions to the word, not want I meant though, words are facinating, but can be a cause to stumble for others so we have to be careful, this board while being mainly American is International too!

David

 

[Trotter]

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?

The "originals" (referring to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts) do not change in meaning, as they are frozen in time. However, the language they are translated into is alive and everchanging (excluding the RCC's Latin of days past ).

Archaic words are just that, archaic.

My wife was ill tonight, and asked that I read the bible to her to help her relax and sleep. I read out of Psalms, starting with Psalm 18, using a NKJV. Several times the difference of words from the KJV jumped out at me, as I have almost exclusively heard the KJV used for preaching and know many of these Psalms. The differences sounded strange, but they greatly increased the understanding of the passages as I read to her.

The language used in the NKJV is much more modern than that of the KJV, thus it is also easier to understand without someone having to stop and explain (bring up to modern times) the archaic words. This does not condemn the KJV, but it shows that the need for modern translations is real.

 

[Salamander]

Wht did the KJV translators update the much older English versions with their more modern English? Wasn't the old Wyliffe Bilble English good enough?



Why change the language of the Bible just because English language changed?

Uh, no one actually changed the language per se, but they did clarify in a more understandable form of English that didn't detract from the original meaning by using confusing and somewhat delusive wording.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

uh, what does this mean?

maad of nouyt in Crist Jhesu

,

Looks to me like they used more modern English, just like the NKJV translators did.

 

[Salamander]

As one who works with mostly illiterate people I find your remarks offensive.:tear:

One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Mark 12:37- David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

May God be graceful to you in your pompous ignorance. And please forgive my saying so.

I think you are just playing the one who likes to pick up offenses by first manufactoring the offense then acting upon your own creation.

It also seems you are more likely to promote the very ignorance and illiteracy so you can feel the sense of being "higher-up" than those you minister to.

You ask my forgiveness for something you've accused me of being, that I am not?

I believe firmly in placing the cookies on the table for all to reach, not placing the best cookies on the higher shelves for only the "tall in the saddle" to comprehend on how to get up there to get some.

You act as if the very ones you judge as illiterate are incapable of being educated. may I say that you teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, but you would rather give him a fish that only feeds him for a day?

To promote learning it is well established to confront the intellect with a challenge, not give the score sheet with the teachers edition to the student.raying:

 

[Salamander]

uh, what does this mean?

,

Looks to me like they used more modern English, just like the NKJV translators did.

Not exactly, they changed the contextual meanings of some passages by the use of their preference in the translating the NKJV.

It looks to me more like the spelling of the English words were more likened to the common verbage than to actually change the words into a more "current" verbage, which if one actually looks past their nose, they see many words NNE actually uses.

 

[Salamander]

'Fret' (KJV) from the Hebrew qatsaph, kaw-tsaf' a primitive root; to crack off, i.e. (figuratively) burst out in rage:--(be) anger(-ry), displease, fret self, (provoke to) wrath (come), be wroth.

Is translated 'wroth', 'wrath', 'angry', 'displeased', 'angered', and 'provoked' in other places in the OT, so the NKJV is not altering the meaning at all.

Uh, yes, the NKJV IS altering the understanding the verse. First the people fretted themselves to become enraged to then curse their king and God.

I love the wording of the KJB because in this very example, it is understood that first the people had an inner problem that brought on the raging which led to the cursing of their king.

Seems your [snip] version is lacking.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

Carry on.

Your going no-where matey.

The Gospel was always preached in the vernacular.

And so it should be today, the Elect hear it and believe...

The elect become that way because they first believed and heard the preaching of the Gospel in their tongue what the Spirit gave them utterance.

The vernacular, in man's terminology, has nothing to do with the understanding, it is either the Spirit, or it is not.:type:

How is it I understand enough to know what the Spirit sayeth and can very easily give that understanding to most all who speak English unless the Spirit have given an ear of attendence: I cannot, neither could you.

You're demanding the letter, but omit the Spirit. That is certain death to the hearer.:tear:

 

[Salamander]

This means we should all be going back to the earliest English Bible versions. There is no reason to update the language, and that includes "modern versions" like the KJV of 1611.

Try this on for size, Salamander...



Now are you so certain there is no place for "modern versions," Salamander? This means that the Tyndale New Testament (1525), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Bishops' Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1587) and the King James Version (1611 and later revisions) are all modern versions, and that there is no need for any of them. After all, the Wycliffe Bible came first in English, and apparently there was no need to update it according to your line of reasoning.

Salamander, it seems sometimes you need to actually consider what you are saying before you post some of these arguments. When it comes right down to it, such arguments as this actually go against the KJVO stance you claim to support.

Modern versions of words or speling?

I find no wording changed, only the spelling. "Modern versions" changed entire words and thereby alter the understanding. This has been proven countless times.

Your lame duck arguement against the KJB actually strengthens the stand for the KJB.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salamander]

Stick it in a draw and get a new one.

I suppose your "welsh" should consider a "draw" to be actaully a drawer. But that is your problem, not mine.

When I want to know what the new one is supposed to be like, I compare it to the fore-runner. When perfection is attained, why keep inventing new ways of making sealing wax?

 

[Salamander]

The "originals" (referring to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts) do not change in meaning, as they are frozen in time. However, the language they are translated into is alive and everchanging (excluding the RCC's Latin of days past ).

Archaic words are just that, archaic.

My wife was ill tonight, and asked that I read the bible to her to help her relax and sleep. I read out of Psalms, starting with Psalm 18, using a NKJV. Several times the difference of words from the KJV jumped out at me, as I have almost exclusively heard the KJV used for preaching and know many of these Psalms. The differences sounded strange, but they greatly increased the understanding of the passages as I read to her.

The language used in the NKJV is much more modern than that of the KJV, thus it is also easier to understand without someone having to stop and explain (bring up to modern times) the archaic words. This does not condemn the KJV, but it shows that the need for modern translations is real.

I would agree except for two things: One, is that the words of the NKJV mislead and are not precise in context. Two, when I read the NKJV, I revert back to the KJB and I understand where the NKJV is misleading by learning what each differing word actually means by context, with NOTHING superimposed.

The context of the words fits rightly in the KJB, the words in the NKJV intermittently divert from the context and barely fit if they fit at all.

 

[Keith M]

Uh, no one actually changed the language per se, but they did clarify in a more understandable form of English that didn't detract from the original meaning by using confusing and somewhat delusive wording.

And that is the same thing the modern versions do, Salamander! It is a double standard (common on this board) that says it was alright for the KJV to update previous language, but that it is not alright for modern versions to update the KJV. :laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Uh, no one actually changed the language per se, but they did clarify in a more understandable form of English that didn't detract from the original meaning by using confusing and somewhat delusive wording.

Feel free to give specific examples from the CSB = Christian
Standard Bible (Holman, 2003).