Language changing demands a new version?

[Ed Edwards]

There is a word in the KJVs for Isaiah 36:12 which according to my
1978 Dictionary is 'Now vulgar in all uses'.

Here is part of the agreement new folk agree to on the
BB (Baptist Board):

By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, hateful, harassing, libelous, pornographic, abusive, obscene, profane, invasive of a person's privacy, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws. We reserve the right to delete any message, topic, to ban a username, IP address, domain name, or email address for *any reason* that we feel is deserved.

I.E. this verse cannot be posted on the BB for it contains a vulgar word.

Therefore, the policy of the BB dictates that:
the language changing demands a new version.

Here is a user friendly new version, CSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003):

Isaiah :12 (CSB):
But the Rabshakeh replied, "Has my master sent me to speak
these words to your master and to you, and not to the men
who sit on the wall, [who are destined] with you
to eat their excrement and drink their urine?"

 

[robycop3]

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.

Oh, how silly! WHO ELSE but GOD could rise up in those days & make no man sure of his life? Job is stating GOD SEES ALL THEIR EVIL, and His eyes are on their ways, and their apparent triumph only temporary. (Job 24:23) Try reading the WHOLE context!

 

[Mexdeaf]

I wasn't going to say any more on this thread, but it is painfully obvious that while Salamander may not be illiterate, he is illogical.

:wavey:

 

[Mexdeaf]

There is a word in the KJVs for Isaiah 36:12 which according to my
1978 Dictionary is 'Now vulgar in all uses'.

Here is part of the agreement new folk agree to on the
BB (Baptist Board):



I.E. this verse cannot be posted on the BB for it contains a vulgar word.

Therefore, the policy of the BB dictates that:
the language changing demands a new version.

Here is a user friendly new version, CSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003):

Isaiah :12 (CSB):
But the Rabshakeh replied, "Has my master sent me to speak
these words to your master and to you, and not to the men
who sit on the wall, [who are destined] with you
to eat their excrement and drink their urine?"

Oh, Ed, don't you know? KJVO's are ALLOWED to substitute another word for any they may deem inappropriate. Baalam's XXX- no, donkey... etc.....

 

[Scott J]

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

No it isn't. It is a practical, common sense concept: If you want someone to understand you, you speak to them in language that they understand. If you want someone to understand what they read then you ensure that its language is the one they learn, use, and understand.

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

Two things there.

One, there are a significant number of words in the KJV where the English meanings understood by modern readers are not the same as the meanings when they were perfectly appropriate translations of the underlying Greek. A few of those words where the modern reader might think they know what is being said but be very wrong are "conversation, communicate, and let".

Second, who made you or any other KJVO the authority to decide whether other people can understand the KJV sufficiently or not? Who made you all the authorities for determining when it is appropriate to produce an updated translation? Frankly, you don't get to say whether the KJV differs enough or not. That is a matter of Christian liberty.

The arguements against the KJB are lame duck arguements.

The only valid argument "against" the KJV is that it uses grammar and diction that are difficult to modern readers and might possibly lead them into a false understanding of what God originally inspired in Greek/Hebrew.

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

:laugh: :laugh: So IOW's, when you say something that others disagree with for very good reason, they are guilty of loving to argue unless they shut up and let you "drool" whatever you want onto the pages of an open discussion board, right?

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

No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.

 

[Scott J]

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.

Err, you mean people should be dependent on someone else to tell them what the Bible means? Isn't how we got 1000 years of biblical ignorance as the RCC corrupted the faith more and more to enrich and empower vain men?

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:

If they can read and understand then the most definitely know more than when they could not read and understand.

 

[Keith M]

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.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's priceless, Salamander. The topic is not the KJV, but whether the language of the KJV should be updated for later generations (refer to the OP to refresh your memory if necessary - you wrote it). The answer of course is a resounding "yes." What you call "sound reason" is nothing more than your errant opinion based merely on your belief in the KJVO myth. Just because someone has a problem understanding every word from English that was in use 400 years before they were born doesn't make them illiterate, except in your own judgmental opinion. You and I were raised on the language of the KJV, so we don't have that much problem with it - after it has been explained to us for years. The fact is that those folks you call illiterate are not illiterate, and they don't need education as you so falsely claim. They have simply never been exposed to 17th century English and they don't understand it. It would be like you trying to go to another country where you don't understand the language - you would be disadvantaged because of your "illiteracy."

The KJVO myth is still supported by "your type" even though you have been educated to these KJVO errors over and over and over again. This only goes to show that education is very often futile - especially when those who have been educated think that their opinions outweigh the truth. God wants to communicate with people in a way they can undeerstand - He wants the very young to be able to understand His word - not for people to have to seek explanation. Yet supporters of the KJVO myth stand against God's desire that all should be able to understand the Gospel.

Salamander, you said "The mindset is everyone here is just about sickened with the persistent drool from those who love to argue." Yet you continue to argue against truth constantly. Why don't you give it up and accept the truth that the KJVO myth is nothing but a fable? There is no "sound reason" of any kind to the KJVO myth that "your type" supports - neither scriptural nor intellectual. Yet you love to argue and support something that makes no sense at all. Jesus told us to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt 28:19 NKJV) yet you would stand against His will by keeping the Gospel shrouded in antiquated language and difficult to understand for many. Yet you don't practice what you preach, Salamander. Why don't you give up modern versions like the KJV and go back to the original English? After all, the KJV did the same thing you condemn modern versions for doing. It was just as wrong for the KJV to make changes as it is for the modern versions to make similar changes.

 

[robycop3]

In a nutshell, it's quite evident that GOD has caused His word to be updated in English ever since He first introduced it to English. And He's done the same thing with French, Spanish, etc. How easy it woulda been for God to have preserved the originals and prevented any updating! Clearly, it is His will that His word be in the current languages, and clearly His will has been done.

And lemme repeat...these updates do NOT cause older versions to "expire". They're still just as valid. Just as the Model-T has been replaced by newer models, but is still a car, the older Bible versions have, or are, being replaced by current-language versions, but are still valid versions.

 

[Keith M]

I like your analogy, Cranston. Just as a Model-T is still a car, so the KJV is still a Bible. It isn't ready for the trash heap - not by a long shot! :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

I like your analogy, Cranston. Just as a Model-T is still a car, so the KJV is still a Bible. It isn't ready for the trash heap - not by a long shot! :thumbs:

Amen, Bro...PREACH IT!

The KJV will NEVER be ready for the trash heap, long as this age lasts. And neither will be the Geneva, Bishop's, Coverdale, etc. However, just as the Model-T, the original SUV, was made for the roads of 1908, the KJV was made for the English readers of 1611. We have cars for today's roads, and Bibles for today's English.

 

[Salamander]

Oh, how silly! WHO ELSE but GOD could rise up in those days & make no man sure of his life? Job is stating GOD SEES ALL THEIR EVIL, and His eyes are on their ways, and their apparent triumph only temporary. (Job 24:23) Try reading the WHOLE context!

Would you in turn try reading the entirety of the Bible and see how ignorant you are by making that assumption?

Haven't you ever read that Jesus came to give life and that more abundantly?

Only truly wicked and evil men rise up to a position of power that leaves no man sure of life, try Hitler for instance, or do you equate God with Hitler?

The passage is Job's reply to his three misreable comforters.

In your opinion, does God need to rise up, or is He already far above the evil men described in Job 24?

 

[Salamander]

There is a word in the KJVs for Isaiah 36:12 which according to my
1978 Dictionary is 'Now vulgar in all uses'.

Here is part of the agreement new folk agree to on the
BB (Baptist Board):



I.E. this verse cannot be posted on the BB for it contains a vulgar word.

Therefore, the policy of the BB dictates that:
the language changing demands a new version.

Here is a user friendly new version, CSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003):

Isaiah :12 (CSB):
But the Rabshakeh replied, "Has my master sent me to speak
these words to your master and to you, and not to the men
who sit on the wall, [who are destined] with you
to eat their ********* and drink their *****?"

Your example is an extreme abuse of power if you were the one to enforce that rule because your referenced version is as "vulgar".

Now maybe in Ed's mind it is justified, but that doesn't go very far and you still have God over you and BB.

I edited the "vulgarity" of the wordings you quoted with astericks. The langauge is only changed in the version, not by popular demand or use, unless, of course, you ask the inmates in the asylum.

 

[Salamander]

Err, you mean people should be dependent on someone else to tell them what the Bible means? Isn't how we got 1000 years of biblical ignorance as the RCC corrupted the faith more and more to enrich and empower vain men?

Nice try, but to no avail. The dark Ages were the result of those who had education to oppress those who didn't.

I am PROMOTING education and NOT denying anyone the opportunity to KNOW what the Bible says verses what others THINK the Bible says.

If they can read and understand then the most definitely know more than when they could not read and understand.

I believe you left God out of your opinion, or is there only a few things God is able to do today?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salamander]

"conversation, communicate, and let".

So tell me why you promote illiteracy by having a problem understanding those threee words?

Second, who made you or any other KJVO the authority to decide whether other people can understand the KJV sufficiently or not?

No one, and I am not trying to be anyone's authority, ever hear of making a false accusation?

Who made you all the authorities for determining when it is appropriate to produce an updated translation?

God. He gave us His Word w/o error already, why do you demand God be corrected?

Frankly, you don't get to say whether the KJV differs enough or not. That is a matter of Christian liberty.

Christian liberty has to remain within the confines of the One who is the Authority over these matters. God has always held His Word above His very name, but there's your problem, you don't like that statement.

The only valid argument "against" the KJV is that it uses grammar and diction that are difficult to modern readers and might possibly lead them into a false understanding of what God originally inspired in Greek/Hebrew.

Again, you're still promoting illiteracy.

:laugh: :laugh: So IOW's, when you say something that others disagree with for very good reason, they are guilty of loving to argue unless they shut up and let you "drool" whatever you want onto the pages of an open discussion board, right?

And for very good reason I stick with my drool and not as expected by others to get stuck in theirs. But who is agrueing, me? Not.

No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.

Nope, I am under Authority to stay with God's Word.

Your arguements for an edition or version to meet the verbal usage of todays' English has nothing more than liberalism/ sinking sand, to stand on, or is it you don't believe God when He advises us to go back to the old paths?

 

[Salamander]

In a nutshell, it's quite evident that GOD has caused His word to be updated in English ever since He first introduced it to English. And He's done the same thing with French, Spanish, etc. How easy it woulda been for God to have preserved the originals and prevented any updating! Clearly, it is His will that His word be in the current languages, and clearly His will has been done.

And lemme repeat...these updates do NOT cause older versions to "expire". They're still just as valid. Just as the Model-T has been replaced by newer models, but is still a car, the older Bible versions have, or are, being replaced by current-language versions, but are still valid versions.

I love the way you people equate the Word of God with man's ability to increase in knowledge and manufacturing, and there it is: man "improving" on God's Word!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salamander]

Amen, Bro...PREACH IT!

The KJV will NEVER be ready for the trash heap, long as this age lasts. And neither will be the Geneva, Bishop's, Coverdale, etc. However, just as the Model-T, the original SUV, was made for the roads of 1908, the KJV was made for the English readers of 1611. We have cars for today's roads, and Bibles for today's English.

Ok, by that estimation, man will continue to improve on God as man conitues to think up new ways to make God better.:tongue3:

 

[rbell]

Ok, by that estimation, man will continue to improve on God as man conitues to think up new ways to make God better.:tongue3:

you're equating God with the Word of God. And by your statement, I can assume any version--including the AV--is "man trying to improve upon God.

But, since I don't agree with your statement, you're out there by yourself.

One thing about it...if logical gymnastics become an olympic sport, Sal's my choice to beat the Russian team...:tongue3:

 

[Salamander]

you're equating God with the Word of God. And by your statement, I can assume any version--including the AV--is "man trying to improve upon God.

But, since I don't agree with your statement, you're out there by yourself.

One thing about it...if logical gymnastics become an olympic sport, Sal's my choice to beat the Russian team...:tongue3:

No, iIm equating God with the God of ability to keep His Word intact and without confusing the context by any bias against the KJB.

Job 24 deals specifically with evil and wicked men and their presumptions. "God" in the NKJV is superimposed by their translators because of their [attack and libel against the translators of the NKJV removed.]

The Hebrew denotes the person in Job 24 to be nothing more than a man. The NKJV does otherwise all out there by itsself.:smilewinkgrin:

Now, that the language has been imposed to permit the error of such, may I make a suggestion?:flower:

 

[robycop3]

Ok, by that estimation, man will continue to improve on God as man conitues to think up new ways to make God better.:tongue3:

Actually, by YOUR estimation, some KJVOs will continue to glue feathers onto the KJVO hippo & blow on it, hoping to make it fly. Sorry, it won't sing, either.

 

[robycop3]

No, iIm equating God with the God of ability to keep His Word intact and without confusing the context by any bias against the KJB.

Job 24 deals specifically with evil and wicked men and their presumptions. "God" in the NKJV is superimposed by their translators because of their [removed attack against transltors of the NKJV.] The Hebrew denotes the person in Job 24 to be nothing more than a man. The NKJV does otherwise all out there by itsself.:smilewinkgrin:

Now, that the language has been imposed to permit the error of such, may I make a suggestion?:flower:

Again, how silly! In Job's day, no MAN could rise up & make a lotta other men not sure of their lives.