More dynamic equivalence in the KJV

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Askjo said "You still refuse to answer my question about the Hebrew text. I am waiting for you......"

I have repeatedly explained. Where I said "Hebrew has...", I am simply typing in what the translators of the KJV said the Hebrew has. Maybe you think they are liars?

What Hebrew TEXT? There has MANY Hebrew texts. Which text?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Anglican Version 1611 and the more modern English translations use basically the identical Hebrew Old Testament.

What does this have to do with the issue?

The issue (in case some have forgotten) is to demonstrate the the Anglican Version DOES in fact (in spite of denials) use dynamic equivalence in some passages.

Duh. Let's stick to the topic, please.

Is anyone still denying this?

 

[GrannyGumbo]

It appears to me, that even in 1611 the word "silly" meant the same as it did in 1828; from an online etymology dictionary: silly - O.E. gesælig "happy" (related to sæl "happiness"), from W.Gmc. *sæligas. The word's considerable sense development moved from "blessed" to "pious," to "innocent" (1200), to "harmless," to "pitiable" (c.1280), to "weak" (c.1300), to "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (1576). Further tendency toward "stunned, dazed as by a blow" (1886) in knocked silly, etc.

But I'm certain broT meant the word 'silly' to be exactly what he intended it to be & he wasn't being kind; after all, if you'd just understand, then you'd understand...understand?

Insulting phrase #2: Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect

 

[Ed Edwards]

Strangely you missed this insulting phrase:

You are still straitened in your own bowels.
This phrase comes right out of your favorite Bible:

2Corinthians 6:12 (KJV1769):
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye
are straitened in your own bowels.

And the reason you didn't see the insult is because
here the KJV translated word-for-word instead
of using a dynamic equivalent so you would understand
what was being said. Frankly, the 1611 translators
used a "straitened" and a "bowels" that means different
stuff than what we generally think it means.

So, Sister GrannyGumbo, you have been had in
the debate again. This is a debate topic and you
should be expect to be out debated by people who have
knowledge of proper debate techniques and
experience/training in the subject being debated.

God knows we love you, but the swimming pool here is
way over your head -- try not to blubber.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
It appears to me, that even in 1611 the word "silly" meant the same as it did in 1828; from an online etymology dictionary: silly - O.E. gesælig "happy" (related to sæl "happiness"), from W.Gmc. *sæligas. The word's considerable sense development moved from "blessed" to "pious," to "innocent" (1200), to "harmless," to "pitiable" (c.1280), to "weak" (c.1300), to "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (1576). Further tendency toward "stunned, dazed as by a blow" (1886) in knocked silly, etc.

Amen, Sister GrannyGumbo -- Preach it!

Thank you for refreshing my bowels in
the Lord today! May God be liberal
today with blessing toward you,
your family, and your ministy. Amen.

I appreciate that you finally entered some
data useful to the discussion we are having.
What is the on-line
source of this etymology dictionary?

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[GrannyGumbo]

broEdEd, you do make me laugh! A good kind of laugh is what I mean.

And I don't cry about being way-in-over-my-head, cuz when yur dumb, things don't bother ya like it would if'n you wuz smart.

You're right, tho, I'm NOT insulted of your continuous use of the word "bowels"...words that come out of that blessed ol'Book bring comfort to my bowels. The 2 phrases I've listed as being insulting are manmade.

Here's where I found that dictionary:

http://www.etymonline.com/

 

[natters]

Askjo said "What Hebrew TEXT? There has MANY Hebrew texts. Which text?"

The text that the Translators used when translating the KJV. And probably all of them as well, they ain't that different.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by natters:
Here are some more examples of dynamic equivalence in the KJV. These are not found by me, nor have any modern scholars uncovered these - these are from the Translators themselves, indicated in their notes int the 1611 KJV. They appear on almost every page, here are a few random pages worth of notes. In these instances, has the KJV preserved "words" or "thoughts"?

...

2 Kings 25:6
KJV has "they gave judgement upon him", Hebrew has "they spake judgement with him".

...

Thank you Brother Natter.
That was a very clear explanation of
exactly where you got the Hebrew statement
and the KJV statement. I can use it to
double check the accuracy of your statement.
All I need is one of my two facimilies
of the KJV1611 OR my copy of the KJV1873.
I'll use the KJV1873:

Yep, "gave judgement upon him" has a
superscript "a" which indicates a footnote
which says: "Heb. spake judgment
with him".

The blessed 47 translators of the King James
Version (KJV) were HONEST and put their
translator sidenotes there to explain such
matters. Dishonest persons delete the
margin notes claiming that it causes people
to doubt. In fact, it seems to cause
people to ask questions that ignornat people
don't want to have to answer. Fortunately
brother Natters clearly defined how he came
to his conclusions and exactly which
Heberew source he was using. But milage
may vary

 

[Trotter]

Granny,

I am sorry that you were insulted by my remarks. But I do not understand why, as you are not party to the man-made lie being paraded around here as truth straight from the mouth of God.

As far as I know, you have never out and out asid that any other translation besides the KJV is not the word of God. You have stated that it is your Bible, and your measure, but I have not seen you actively condemn anyone for using a different translation.

Michelle, on the other hand, does, and I violently oppose it. By trying to elevate a work of man to what she and her cohorts are trying to do is out and out blasphemous! If someone came in here trying to do the same with a different translation, I would still be just as adamant.

As for the phrase, "King James Version Onlyism- the cancer of Christianity", it is the truth, and it shall stand. If it offends you, I cannot help it. KJVO is a false, man-made doctrine, and is just as deadly as works-based salvation.

I have found KJVO's to be extremely legalistic, and down-right nasty to those who do not agree and bow before their Nehushtan.

I will not bow. Not now, not ever.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Silly is as silly does.

If the subject matter wasn't so deadly to the faith of so many, I would be laughing my eyes out at Michelle's excuse for pious logic. But it is not funny.

Michelle is a young Christian, but she is allowing herself to be brainwashed into false doctrine.

In Christ,
Trotter