Language changing demands a new version?

[Ed Edwards]

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.

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

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

 

[gb93433]

I refuse to read Sal's post, because it's not in koine greek.

Didn't Koine Greek precede English by at least 1000 years.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So Sal,

It was okay to produce a new version is 1611 to bring the English translation up to date, but it was not okay in 1981?

The KJV was vastly different than the Wycliffe Bible. There have been other attempts along the way to update the English and the KJV was most succesful (we will leave how it was succesful for another debate ).

All of sudden man's reasoning says "English was not perfect in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st century. It was only pefect in 1611 so we must stick to the translation from that year and that year alone."

Update the English Bible then, but never again.

 

[Keith M]

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.

And what versions did you check, Salamander? I bet you compared the KJV to the KJV for that is the only way you could arrive at this intentionally false claim.

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

Actually, it is you who has the lame duck argument, Salamander. And I make no claims against the KJV, Salamander, but I do make claims against the KJVO myth. How many times do you have to be told before it sinks in? Let's try and see if you can get it this time - no one on this board is against the KJV. However, we are against the untruths and the deliberate misrepresentations that make up the KJVO myth. Your deliberate misrepresentations do more to discredit the KJVO myth you claim to support than they do to discredit the modern versions.

Salamander, you must be pretty naive if you believe all the misinformation you are constantly spewing forth. Do you really think that others are not going to look into the false claims you make?

The title of the two and twentithe salm. `The salm, ether the song of Dauid. The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal faile to me; in the place of pasture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the watir of refreischyng; he conuertide my soule. He ledde me forth on the pathis of riytfulnesse; for his name. For whi thouy Y schal go in the myddis of schadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi yerde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me. Thou hast maad redi a boord in my siyt; ayens hem that troblen me. Thou hast maad fat myn heed with oyle; and my cuppe, `fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And thi merci schal sue me; in alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y dwelle in the hows of the Lord; in to the lengthe of daies. Psalm 23 Wycliffe (1395)

[A Psalme of Dauid.] The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters. He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake. Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer. Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer. Psalm 23 KJV (1611)

I'm certainly no genius, Salamander. But it doesn't take a genius to see that the KJV did change some words. Several of them, in fact. And this is just one chapter out of the whole Bible. This absolutely blows your false "no wording changed" claim right out of the water. It also shows the double standard you adopt. Your hypocritical double standard holds that if the KJv changed any words from previous versions it was the work of God, while erroneously holding that if any modern versions change any words from the KJv then it is the work of Satan. You hypocritically condemn the modern versions for doing the same thing the KJV did.

Salamander, if you would actually think about some of these wild (and false) claims you make, if you would actually check that what you are thinking is the actual truth, then you would save yourself a lot of embarassment when you are shown to be absolutely wrong and deliberately spreading uninformed and false "information."

 

[Trotter]

I would agree except for two things: One, is that the words of the NKJV mislead and are not precise in context.

How so?

Misleading? The words chosen actually are just the opposite, as they are words used TODAY with understanding, without going out on the DE limb.

Not precise in context? The words used mean what the obscure words of the KJV mean, or when different, what the actual texts say.

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.

Again, how so?

You were raised on the KJV, thus you understand it... it has been explained to you all your life. And no amount of context can explain every word, like it or not.

People today were not raised on the KJV. The vast majority have never had the bible read to them in school because it was banned before they ever went to school. They have never heard it read at home because they were raised heathen. They have never sat down and read it because they were lost and had no desire to do so.

And, if you haven't noticed, we live in an ignorant society... Drop-out rates are climbing. Illiteracy is rampant. The US is WAY down the list of world-wide education. The average person's reading level is below the sixth grade level.

This isn't to say that everyone is stupid. Many are very well educated and well read. But they are the exception. Don't believe me? Walk into any fast food place and test the employees (teenagers).

The KJV is not simple to read. Its language is complex, and many words are either obscure or obsolete. This doesn't discount it as the word of God, it just makes it dated. Actually, when it was written it used the older style of the English language, and not the tongue of the common man... and English hasn't stood still for those 400 years.

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.

Again, same context but different words with the same meaning. Spin all you want, but that's the fact.

 

[Keith M]

Preach it, Brother Trotter!

(My apologies for saying it before you got around to it, Ed!)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Preach it, Brother Trotter!

(My apologies for saying it before you got around to it, Ed!)

Your score, Sir!!!

Trotter: //And, if you haven't noticed, we live in an ignorant society. Drop-out
rates are climbing. Illiteracy is rampant. The US is WAY down
the list of world-wide education. ... Don't believe me? Walk into
any fast food place and test the employees (teenagers).//

Yep, Brother Trotter - you are so RIGHT ON!

I did. There were four college kids next to me in the fast food
place. One had a 15% college discount. He handed the discount
ticket to the casher. She computed .15 times the bill, subtraced
that from the bill's total and came up with a figure. Say it was
$4.84. The casher's cash register figured the change from a $5
bill (16¢). That isn't the proof of ignorance, it is coming up.
The first college kid passed the 15% college discount ticket to
the second college kid. The casher went through exactly the
same procedure (they all had the special of the day: burger,
fries, & soda, so the all had the same bill). The casher
went through exactly the same procedure (except one of the
four had a $10 bill) down to the $5 bill. Each time she computed
the same procedure, coming to the same end results: the
correct change. She was good (That was back in the middle 1980s,
now with computers the cash register figures out what to charge,
what to discount, what the total is, what the change is) she got the
same answer each time. But why didn't she know that the same
inputs in arithemetic produce the same results EVERY TIME?

 

[robycop3]

So Sal,

It was okay to produce a new version is 1611 to bring the English translation up to date, but it was not okay in 1981?

The KJV was vastly different than the Wycliffe Bible. There have been other attempts along the way to update the English and the KJV was most succesful (we will leave how it was succesful for another debate ).

All of sudden man's reasoning says "English was not perfect in the 14th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st century. It was only pefect in 1611 so we must stick to the translation from that year and that year alone."

Update the English Bible then, but never again.

I believe among other things, Roger, the very history of God's word in English, along with the reactions to the updates throughout the centuries, shows the one-version-only idea false. Plainly, God has kept His word updated in English, and, i suspect, every other major language also. And He did NOT retire in 1611.

We see the reactions from "hollering" to outright violence every time a newer version has been introduced. Wycliffe's life was in danger because of his translation of the LV into English. Tyndale was murdered for making the first English translation from the old mss. Rogers was burned at the stake for making his version. Coverdale & Co. had to flee England for translating the Scriptures into English. The AV 1611 was roundly criticized by the "Geneva Onlies". And we know the resta the story. What the devil failed to accomplish with force, he's now trying to accomplish with guile...placing doubt on God's word by tricking Christians into dissing the versions they don't use.

Given the prevalence of several modern English versions, can anyone truthfully sit back & say this is not God's will? Would He allow any false version to become the top seller? He is well able to provide His word AS HE CHOOSES, and quickly discredit false versions among the brethren today, just as He's done since He first distributed His word among the nations.

 

[HankD]

I haven't read through this whole thread maybe these verses were mentioned, but here are some examples of 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean English that desparately need modernizing:

2 Corinthians 6

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

1 Chronicles 26
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.

HankD​

 

[Keith M]

I haven't read through this whole thread maybe these verses were mentioned, but here are some examples of 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean English that desparately need modernizing:

2 Corinthians 6

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.​

1 Chronicles 26
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.​

HankD​

Thanks for your input, Hank. The question remains, should KJVO supporters say that it was alright for the KJV to update previous Bible versions, then say that it is not alright for modern versions to update the KJV? Isn't it quite hypocritical to say the KJV updates were alright while condemning the modern versions for doing the same thing?

A! ye Corynthies, oure mouth is open to you, oure herte is alargid; ye ben not angwischid in vs, but ye ben anguischid in youre inwardnessis. And Y seie as to sones, ye that han the same reward, be ye alargid. 2 Corinthians 2:11-13 Wycliffe (1395)

Therfor the lot of the eest bifelde to Semelie; forsothe the north coost bifelde bi lot to Zacarie, his sone, a ful prudent man and lernd; sotheli to Obededom and hise sones at the southe, in which part of the hows the counsel of the eldre men was; Sephyma and Thosa weren at the west, bisidis the yate that ledith to the weie of stiyng, kepyng ayens kepyng. Sotheli at the eest weren sixe dekenes, and at the north weren foure bi dai; and at the south also weren foure at the myddai; and, where the counsel was, weren tweyne and tweyne. And in the sellis, ethir `litle housis, of porteris at the west, weren foure in the weie, and tweyne bi the sellis. 1 Chronicles 26:14-18 Wycliffe (1395)

If the KJVO double standard were really not a double standard, that would mean we would have to abandon such modern versions as the KJV and return to the first English Bible.

 

[HankD]

Thanks for your input, Hank. The question remains, should KJVO supporters say that it was alright for the KJV to update previous Bible versions, then say that it is not alright for modern versions to update the KJV? Isn't it quite hypocritical to say the KJV updates were alright while condemning the modern versions for doing the same thing?

I agree Keith although I wouldn't call it "hypocritical" but maybe "overzealousness".

Take the example of the vulgar (common) Latin spoken in 1-2 century Italy. The Scriptures were translated into the Latin Vulgate in the 4-5th centuries and the Latin was proclaimed "the language of heaven".

Problem: Latin slowly turned into Italian and the Bible was virtually lost to the common people as the Latin Vulgate Only attitude reigned over the Church for a thousand years.

History indeed repeats itself if we let it.

RE: The koine Greek NT: Not only does "koine" mean "common - a lingua franca" but it was the language of the "common" man, the language of the people not scholarship.

HankD

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

2 Corinthians 6

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

1 Chronicles 26
14 And the lot eastward fell to Shelemiah. Then for Zechariah his son, a wise counsellor, they cast lots; and his lot came out northward.
15 To Obededom southward; and to his sons the house of Asuppim.
16 To Shuppim and Hosah the lot came forth westward, with the gate Shallecheth, by the causeway of the going up, ward against ward.
17 Eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two.
18 At Parbar westward, four at the causeway, and two at Parbar.


​

hey, those r my life verses too!

 

[Salamander]

And what versions did you check, Salamander? I bet you compared the KJV to the KJV for that is the only way you could arrive at this intentionally false claim.



Actually, it is you who has the lame duck argument, Salamander. And I make no claims against the KJV, Salamander, but I do make claims against the KJVO myth. How many times do you have to be told before it sinks in? Let's try and see if you can get it this time - no one on this board is against the KJV. However, we are against the untruths and the deliberate misrepresentations that make up the KJVO myth. Your deliberate misrepresentations do more to discredit the KJVO myth you claim to support than they do to discredit the modern versions.

Salamander, you must be pretty naive if you believe all the misinformation you are constantly spewing forth. Do you really think that others are not going to look into the false claims you make?





I'm certainly no genius, Salamander. But it doesn't take a genius to see that the KJV did change some words. Several of them, in fact. And this is just one chapter out of the whole Bible. This absolutely blows your false "no wording changed" claim right out of the water. It also shows the double standard you adopt. Your hypocritical double standard holds that if the KJv changed any words from previous versions it was the work of God, while erroneously holding that if any modern versions change any words from the KJv then it is the work of Satan. You hypocritically condemn the modern versions for doing the same thing the KJV did.

Salamander, if you would actually think about some of these wild (and false) claims you make, if you would actually check that what you are thinking is the actual truth, then you would save yourself a lot of embarassment when you are shown to be absolutely wrong and deliberately spreading uninformed and false "information."

Excuse me, friend, but this discussion only involves the KJB. This is NOT a KJVO bashing as it is usaully undertaken by your type.

I can understand the same thing in any version that is contextually correct.

I am trying to deal with the arguement that the language changing demands a new version as a modern concept.

I have repeatedly confirmed that nowhere does the KJB differ so much from our presnet English to demand such.

The arguements against the KJB are lame duck arguements.

If you want to berail posters by attcking what you call the "KJVO myth", then may I invite you to start your own discussion board?raying:

The mindset is everyone here is just about sickened with the persistent drool from those who love to argue.

I have offered sound reason, you only offer an arguement about your favorite hobby horse.

 

[Salamander]

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:

I believe you lack understanding in a specific area of English literature to know that the KJB "English" is perfectly understandable in poetical grace and pertinent to the context swhich NEVER detracts from the thought-intent.

No one actually spoke as the KJB is written except as quoting the KJB, but it's the UNDERSTANDING that IS most IMPORTANT.

Or should you disagree with Paul when he said he would rather speak 5 words with the understanding than 10,000 in an unknown tongue?

I believe, and KNOW, the KJB is understood PERFECTLY by it's proper arrangements of it's wordings. Those who "don't" undertsand the KJB due to it's use of proper and poetic wordings are in need of tutoring and are not to be left in an illiterate state.

I know the arguement goes that they need a Bible they can read and understand, but the facts remain, they actaully know nothing more than they did while they still read the KJB.:tear:

 

[Salamander]

How so?

Misleading? The words chosen actually are just the opposite, as they are words used TODAY with understanding, without going out on the DE limb.

Not precise in context? The words used mean what the obscure words of the KJV mean, or when different, what the actual texts say.


Again, how so?

You were raised on the KJV, thus you understand it... it has been explained to you all your life. And no amount of context can explain every word, like it or not.

People today were not raised on the KJV. The vast majority have never had the bible read to them in school because it was banned before they ever went to school. They have never heard it read at home because they were raised heathen. They have never sat down and read it because they were lost and had no desire to do so.

And, if you haven't noticed, we live in an ignorant society... Drop-out rates are climbing. Illiteracy is rampant. The US is WAY down the list of world-wide education. The average person's reading level is below the sixth grade level.

This isn't to say that everyone is stupid. Many are very well educated and well read. But they are the exception. Don't believe me? Walk into any fast food place and test the employees (teenagers).

The KJV is not simple to read. Its language is complex, and many words are either obscure or obsolete. This doesn't discount it as the word of God, it just makes it dated. Actually, when it was written it used the older style of the English language, and not the tongue of the common man... and English hasn't stood still for those 400 years.



Again, same context but different words with the same meaning. Spin all you want, but that's the fact.

Is God to be equated with the wicked in laying in wait to take men by craftiness and leaving them with their lives in question?

Job 24, in the NKJV says God is. The KJB says the ones in the context are responsible for the haneous act. Go read it for yourself.

 

[Salamander]

Trotter said

The KJV is not simple to read. Its language is complex, and many words are either obscure or obsolete. This doesn't discount it as the word of God, it just makes it dated. Actually, when it was written it used the older style of the English language, and not the tongue of the common man... and English hasn't stood still for those 400 years.

And a few "Preach-its!" followed.

Your ideal only makes the Word "complex,obsolete, and obscure" according to your assumption, but it's really amazing us dumb ol' hillbillys understand it fine.

English is ever influenced with it's nuances of "infectious" languages, but studying to show thyself approved still works with the KJB. Where studying to show thyself approved shows where many misunderstandings are imposed upon the reader by the complexity of the multitude of other versions. which so many cloud the mind with other words that NNE EVER uses.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:I believe you lack understanding in a specific area of English literature to know that the KJB "English" is perfectly understandable in poetical grace and pertinent to the context swhich NEVER detracts from the thought-intent.

Neither do modern versions.

No one actually spoke as the KJB is written except as quoting the KJB, but it's the UNDERSTANDING that IS most IMPORTANT.

Then I guess you've never read Shakespeare, Milton, or KJ himself.

Or should you disagree with Paul when he said he would rather speak 5 words with the understanding than 10,000 in an unknown tongue?

You're agreeing in a direct statement, but disagreeing indirectly by dissing BVs written in OUR language. The KJV was written for 17th century English users, while modern versions are written for modern english users.

I believe, and KNOW, the KJB is understood PERFECTLY by it's proper arrangements of it's wordings. Those who "don't" undertsand the KJB due to it's use of proper and poetic wordings are in need of tutoring and are not to be left in an illiterate state.

Why do that when God's word is available in TODAY'S English?

I know the arguement goes that they need a Bible they can read and understand, but the facts remain, they actaully know nothing more than they did while they still read the KJB.:tear:

They do if they're reading God's word in THEIR language.

 

[rbell]

Those who "don't" undertsand the KJB due to it's use of proper and poetic wordings are in need of tutoring and are not to be left in an illiterate state.

You just made an excellent argument for the necessity of the Bible in modern English.

I know the arguement goes that they need a Bible they can read and understand, but the facts remain, they actaully know nothing more than they did while they still read the KJB.

A couple of thoughts here:

1. Perhaps the above sentence should be taken outside and shot. It's pretty tortured logic.
2. Your argument in 1610 would have meant no KJV.

 

[robycop3]

salamander:Your ideal only makes the Word "complex,obsolete, and obscure" according to your assumption, but it's really amazing us dumb ol' hillbillys understand it fine.

Shoot, this dumb ole citybilly could understand Sanskrit if he studied long & hard enuff. However, I have no need of it.

English is ever influenced with it's nuances of "infectious" languages, but studying to show thyself approved still works with the KJB.

You just mentioned another thingie that needed updated...STUDY. You know the Greek actually means, "work diligently", which was one of the meanings of 'study' at the time. We now generally define 'study' as 'examine closely with the object of learning'. Not that we don't study God's word, nor was the KJV wrong here, but the change in language certainly called for an update here.


Where studying to show thyself approved shows where many misunderstandings are imposed upon the reader by the complexity of the multitude of other versions. which so many cloud the mind with other words that NNE EVER uses.

Izzatso? Ridden any unicorns lately? Played your sackbut? Doctored any emerods? Chased any satyrs outta yer yard? Trapped any cockatrices? Worn your target in yer back? Returned again anyone's captivity?

 

[rbell]

Played your sackbut? Doctored any emerods?

Hey, HEY.

Easy, now.

<snicker>