Ed Edwards said:Do you mean 'awful (awe full)' or 'awesome'?
There's a difference?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Ed Edwards said:Do you mean 'awful (awe full)' or 'awesome'?
Rufus_1611 said:Chick tracts do not bear the fruit of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.
Ed Edwards said:Rufus_1611: //Chick tracts do not bear the fruit
of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.//
Consider the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (AKA: Mormons),
the 5th largest denomination in the USofA,
they were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?
Are the million Jehovah's Witnesses in the USofA
rooting for 144,000 thousand Kingdom slots,
who were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?
Ed Edwards said:Rufus_1611: //Chick tracts do not bear the fruit
of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.//
Consider the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (AKA: Mormons),
the 5th largest denomination in the USofA,
they were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?
Are the million Jehovah's Witnesses in the USofA
rooting for 144,000 thousand Kingdom slots,
who were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?
C4K said:Lets step back in time 395 years.
Why do all of the modern versions such as the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the king's new translation use that word "terrible" in Psalm 47v2? Would they not be much better to use the grand old word "ferdful" instead. Why are we dumbing down our beautiful language? Why do we insist on changing God's word by retranslation? God gave us His word through our dear brother Wycliff, why do we have to change His word?
Well...I would say that the words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times (ps 12:6) but that would return us to a former controversy, so I won't say itC4K said:Lets step back in time 395 years.
Why do all of the modern versions such as the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the king's new translation use that word "terrible" in Psalm 47v2? Would they not be much better to use the grand old word "ferdful" instead. Why are we dumbing down our beautiful language? Why do we insist on changing God's word by retranslation? God gave us His word through our dear brother Wycliff, why do we have to change His word?
C4K said:Lets step back in time 395 years.
Why do all of the modern versions such as the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the king's new translation use that word "terrible" in Psalm 47v2? Would they not be much better to use the grand old word "ferdful" instead. Why are we dumbing down our beautiful language? Why do we insist on changing God's word by retranslation? God gave us His word through our dear brother Wycliff, why do we have to change His word?
Could you restate that please? I'm not sure what you mean.C4K said:I guarantee if I believed that theory that I could come up with a seven for the Wycliff translation.
Twice in one thread, did you just see Les Miserables or something?At the end of the day
For me it is. I consider the AV/KJV to be the word of God in the English language and there should be no cause to pause in reading to children, just because they might not understand what "terrible" means as they are just as apt to misunderstand "awesome". Regardless of the word used, I think Jim has made an excellent point with Nehemiah 8:8.- is the only reason for insisting on the use of "terrible" because that is what the KJV uses?
Rufus_1611 said:Could you restate that please? I'm not sure what you mean.
Twice in one thread, did you just see Les Miserables or something?
For me it is. I consider the AV/KJV to be the word of God in the English language and there should be no cause to pause in reading to children, just because they might not understand what "terrible" means as they are just as apt to misunderstand "awesome". Regardless of the word used, I think Jim has made an excellent point with Nehemiah 8:8.
Disagree, but alright.C4K said:The purifying 7 times concept can be made to fit any translation.
No apology necessary. I just start humming "How great thou art" to get that song out of my headI apologise that "at the end of the day" bothers you. It in idiom here for "when it comes right down to it."
The AV was created so that out of many would come one. I suspect that the 47 translators looked at Wycliff's "ferdful", looked at Coverdale's "to be feared", looked at the Bishop's, & the Geneva's "terrible", looked at the Hebrew and were moved to settle on "terrible". There is now no necessity to dwell on the Bibles that preceded the AV as the AV was the masterpiece that took the best from the preceding and purified it into a final work in modern English. If God had any role in that effort (and I suspect He did), then I'm comfortable that "terrible" was the right word to use.Does Nehemiah 8v8 not apply to 1611? Should they not just have explained Wycliff's words and allowed Him to give them understanding?
Rufus_1611 said:There is now no necessity to dwell on the Bibles that preceded the AV as the AV was the masterpiece that took the best from the preceding and purified it into a final work in modern English.
C4K said:When it come right down to it (not "at the end of the day") this is where it settles, one's opinion that a certain translation is best. When you do that then it becomes the crux of all one's arguments.