Regarding 'Archaic' English

[Saved421]

I asked you a sincere question, relevant to the thread and to my ministry in Bible translation, and you're leaving without answering it.

You wrote, "The Bible is not any book, it should use Biblical Language."

I wrote: "Please define "Biblical language. As a Bible translator and someone teaching translation, I should know what it is so that I can properly translate. How will I recognize 'Biblical language' in Japanese?"

Please answer. You must have some principles to share.

Added in: Many years ago on the island of Hokkaido, Japan, a salesman came to my door. We got to talking about the Japanese Bible. He was Buddhist, but had a definite opinion about "holy writings." He believed they should read and sound like holy writings. I've often pondered just what he meant by that. Anyone like to try?

Thanks for sharing, and I do apologize.

I just noticed asked me of this question, well, here is my take.

Biblical language is using pure, clean words, also I am not sure how Jpnese works but in Chinese, 你 is you and 祢 is you in the sense referring to God.

Also, I would say that phrasing of the words would be formal, not casual like a comic book or such things.

And please note, I have no issue with foreign translations.

Shawn

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for sharing, and I do apologize.

I just noticed asked me of this question, well, here is my take.

Biblical language is using pure, clean words, also I am not sure how Jpnese works but in Chinese, 你 is you and 祢 is you in the sense referring to God.

Interesting. Japanese has no such difference in the kanji (Chinese characters). We don't use either character at all.. However, there is a Confucianism based difference in how I address someone in Japanese. Omae (お前）for someone under me in society, anata （あなた）for an equal, etc. Temeh (てめえ) would be crude, like a gangster, For deity, in conversation one might add an honorific suffix, like Anatasama (あなた様). But that is not used in written documents! It's complicated!

By the way, I just checked, and the Chinese Union Version (CUV) doesn't appear to use that distinction in the Chinese "you." Don't know why.

Also, I would say that phrasing of the words would be formal, not casual like a comic book or such things.

Thanks for the answer. The "formal" constraint is good. Some would say "classical," and there is a classical dialect of Japanese, but it is barely comprehensible to modern Japanese. And the NT of the Japanese Classical Bible is from Nestle's Greek text, not the TR!

And please note, I have no issue with foreign translations.

Shawn

I'm not sure if you are KJV-only or not. But I have to say that very few KJV-only folk will deal with foreign translations. They may be intimidated, I don't know. But if the KJV is a perfect translation, that has enormous implications for foreign Bible translation.

The only KJV-only type I know who has dealt fairly well with this is Steve Combs with two books: A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, and The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. Kudos to him! However, he never deals with how to get a foreign translation to be inerrant like he believes the KJV to be. There are a couple of other books out there, but not that helpful.

 

[Saved421]

Thanks for responding, there are people who believre the KJB is perfect and do wish to have foreign translators of it.

Such as the holybiblefoundation and purebiblebiblepress. Maybe could assist them with a Japanesse translation?

I am aware Gail one of the people who do believe KJB is perfect is working with them and some other scholars on bringing Bibles to foreign countries.

There's sadly no mainstream TR Chinese version and for safety reasons, won't disclose more.

I am King James Only but not against foreign translations based on the right text (A.V.)

I am currently studying Chinese, its very interesting.

Take care,

Shawn

P/S Don't worry too much about the holy language, as long as its not like the Message version or worded like the teen version/21st century/tniv, so on, its fine.

 

[Saved421]

Ah yes, classical would be difficult to understand, it would be like reading Gothic English or anicent way of Chinese writting.

Really brought up a good question, I will ponder about it.

I have a lot to learn, need to learn to be more paitent, and also I feel grateful there is always a way to find his word.

I am not sure if I am over thinking or what, but I really need to spend more time less on these fourms.

Need to study, take care.

If ever wish to email me, Godisgracious1031@outlook.com

Shawn

 

[JesusFan]

Interesting. Japanese has no such difference in the kanji (Chinese characters). We don't use either character at all.. However, there is a Confucianism based difference in how I address someone in Japanese. Omae (お前）for someone under me in society, anata （あなた）for an equal, etc. Temeh (てめえ) would be crude, like a gangster, For deity, in conversation one might add an honorific suffix, like Anatasama (あなた様). But that is not used in written documents! It's complicated!

By the way, I just checked, and the Chinese Union Version (CUV) doesn't appear to use that distinction in the Chinese "you." Don't know why.

Thanks for the answer. The "formal" constraint is good. Some would say "classical," and there is a classical dialect of Japanese, but it is barely comprehensible to modern Japanese. And the NT of the Japanese Classical Bible is from Nestle's Greek text, not the TR!



I'm not sure if you are KJV-only or not. But I have to say that very few KJV-only folk will deal with foreign translations. They may be intimidated, I don't know. But if the KJV is a perfect translation, that has enormous implications for foreign Bible translation.

The only KJV-only type I know who has dealt fairly well with this is Steve Combs with two books: A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, and The Translator's Greek Grammar of the Textus Receptus. Kudos to him! However, he never deals with how to get a foreign translation to be inerrant like he believes the KJV to be. There are a couple of other books out there, but not that helpful.

he nor any other KJVO will be able to answer that question though, as since they holy to the Holy Spirit inspred the perfect translationinto the 1611 Kjv as a newer and now more perfect revelation from God to man, that only that translation will have God seal of authority upon it

 

[JesusFan]

Thanks for sharing, and I do apologize.

I just noticed asked me of this question, well, here is my take.

Biblical language is using pure, clean words, also I am not sure how Jpnese works but in Chinese, 你 is you and 祢 is you in the sense referring to God.

Also, I would say that phrasing of the words would be formal, not casual like a comic book or such things.

And please note, I have no issue with foreign translations.

Shawn

Would not the modern English language be to us today the very same as Kjv English was to them in 1611, so both equally "bible language?"

 

[Conan]

I believe the text, not the scholars and neither the marginal notes.

Au revoir,

Shawn

The exact position of the Roman Catholics verses the wiser position of the 1611 King James Men.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for responding, there are people who believre the KJB is perfect and do wish to have foreign translators of it.

Such as the holybiblefoundation and purebiblebiblepress. Maybe could assist them with a Japanesse translation?

I'm not familiar with these organizations. I'll check them out.

As for a Japanese translation, my team and I have completed the first ever Japanese NT from the TR in modern Japanese, and are now working on the OT. The title is The Lifeline Japanese Bible (ライフライン聖書). The NT was printed by Bearing Precious Seed in Ohio, with about 86,000 printed, most of which have been distributed to Japanese.

I am aware Gail one of the people who do believe KJB is perfect is working with them and some other scholars on bringing Bibles to foreign countries.

Sorry, I do not consider Gail Riplinger to be a scholar, certainly not a scholar of Bible translation. She has never translated the Bible, and to my knowledge does not know Hebrew or Greek, nor any foreign language. I'm willing to be corrected here, but that is my observation from what I've read by her and about her.

Another non-scholar in the same mode is H. D. Williams. I wrote a critical review on Amazon about his book, Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts, and he blew up about it. (Apparently can't take criticism. ) You can read his response here if you are interested: A Response To A Critique of “Word-For-Word Translating”

There's sadly no mainstream TR Chinese version and for safety reasons, won't disclose more.

I am King James Only but not against foreign translations based on the right text (A.V.)

So does this mean you think it is important to translate from the AV rather than the Hebrew and Greek?

I am currently studying Chinese, its very interesting.

Good for you! It's a very difficult language.

Take care,

Shawn

P/S Don't worry too much about the holy language, as long as its not like the Message version or worded like the teen version/21st century/tniv, so on, its fine.

Thanks. God bless.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not familiar with these organizations. I'll check them out.

As for a Japanese translation, my team and I have completed the first ever Japanese NT from the TR in modern Japanese, and are now working on the OT. The title is The Lifeline Japanese Bible (ライフライン聖書). The NT was printed by Bearing Precious Seed in Ohio, with about 86,000 printed, most of which have been distributed to Japanese.

Sorry, I do not consider Gail Riplinger to be a scholar, certainly not a scholar of Bible translation. She has never translated the Bible, and to my knowledge does not know Hebrew or Greek, nor any foreign language. I'm willing to be corrected here, but that is my observation from what I've read by her and about her.

Another non-scholar in the same mode is H. D. Williams. I wrote a critical review on Amazon about his book, Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts, and he blew up about it. (Apparently can't take criticism. ) You can read his response here if you are interested: A Response To A Critique of “Word-For-Word Translating”

So does this mean you think it is important to translate from the AV rather than the Hebrew and Greek?

Good for you! It's a very difficult language.

Thanks. God bless.

AALL translations should be based off the original languages text, and should be done with as formal and lietral method as possible

 

[Craigbythesea]

Dear community,

It seems this discussion is not going to go anywhere, so I am retiring from this discission.

I do want to note I did not grew up on the KJB, and its not impossible to understand the A.V.

I believe the Bible over scholars, the marginal notes are not scripture.

Let's not agure anymore and focus on gospel sharing.

Shawn

Most unfortunately there are some Christians who post misinformation that needs to be refuted for the sake of the Christen community. Indeed, very much of the ministry of both Jesus and Paul was devoted to correcting the errors of religious people who were teaching false beliefs.

No one is saying that it is impossible to underhand the KJV, but rather the fact that it is very much more difficult to understand than the more recent English translations. Unfortunately, there are words in the KJV that its readers believe they can understand when in fact they cannot understand them at all. A good example is found in Genesis 1:6-7,

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)

Only a very small fraction of the users of the KJV correctly understand the concept expressed here by the word “firmament.” They typically understand it to express the concept of the atmosphere or a part of it—such as “clouds.” Although the word is still commonly used correctly in academia, it is rarely used in nonacademic media. The Hebrew verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating. It is especially used to express the concept of beating pieces of malleable metal into thin plates (Exodus. 39:3, Numbers. 16: 39). The substantive רַקֻּעַים is used in Numbers 16:38 where it correctly translated “hammered plates.” The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV do not realize that it came down to us from the Latin present active infinitive (firmāre) of the verb firmō, meaning “I make firm, strengthen, harden, or fortify.” Indeed, the “firmament” in the KJV is a strong, solid structure like an inverted bowl (dome) shaped by beating. Hence,

6. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. (NRSV)

6. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:
7. God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. (NAB)

 

[JesusFan]

AALL translations should be based off the original languages text, and should be done with as formal and lietral method as possible

For if we based any translation off another translation, no longer being based upon the final and supreme authority of Greek and Hebrew texts

 

[JesusFan]

Most unfortunately there are some Christians who post misinformation that needs to be refuted for the sake of the Christen community. Indeed, very much of the ministry of both Jesus and Paul was devoted to correcting the errors of religious people who were teaching false beliefs.

No one is saying that it is impossible to underhand the KJV, but rather the fact that it is very much more difficult to understand than the more recent English translations. Unfortunately, there are words in the KJV that its readers believe they can understand when in fact they cannot understand them at all. A good example is found in Genesis 1:6-7,

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)

Only a very small fraction of the users of the KJV correctly understand the concept expressed here by the word “firmament.” They typically understand it to express the concept of the atmosphere or a part of it—such as “clouds.” Although the word is still commonly used correctly in academia, it is rarely used in nonacademic media. The Hebrew verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating. It is especially used to express the concept of beating pieces of malleable metal into thin plates (Exodus. 39:3, Numbers. 16: 39). The substantive רַקֻּעַים is used in Numbers 16:38 where it correctly translated “hammered plates.” The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV do not realize that it came down to us from the Latin present active infinitive (firmāre) of the verb firmō, meaning “I make firm, strengthen, harden, or fortify.” Indeed, the “firmament” in the KJV is a strong, solid structure like an inverted bowl (dome) shaped by beating. Hence,

6. And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. (NRSV)

6. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened:
7. God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. (NAB)

That is where KJVO goes off into extremism, as they also accuse those of us who deny KJVO as holding to viewing their KJV as in same way they view our MV

 

[Van]

Provincialism says "my way or the highway." I once met an elderly man, a missionary, who had spend his life in Africa, witnessing and translating scripture into the language of the people he sought to reach.

We engaged in small talk, but as he left, he asked what version I had, and I said it was a NASB, because I had difficulty with the KJV. He smiled and said, "Yes, it is important that you have a bible you can understand." It took me years before I fully appreciated just how profound his statement is.

Jesus taught we should proclaim God's word "clearly, plainly and boldly."

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am not going to argue with you all, agree to disagree.

I have no issue with the KJB English, even if I did, I will study it using English. I do not speak Greek or Hebrew.

Have a good day.

I have here in my study many copies of the KJV published by various publishers. A reader does not need to read very much of the New Testament in the KJV to come upon verses that are not fully intelligible even by most professors of English in our finest universities and have for centuries confounded publishers and printers alike. Indeed, as early as in Matt. 4:2 we find such a verse. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse and how it appears in various printings of the KJV:

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society

We find here four different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

What English grammatical form is being rendered here, and precisely what does it mean? What is the difference between being “an hungered” (etc.) and being “hungry?” Do you know the correct answer to all of these questions? Very few people, even exceptionally well educated people, do. If your claim is true that you “don't have any problems understanding the King James,” prove that it is true by correctly answering these questions.

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is sadly confused and obscure.

The NKJV is very plain and easy to read here, “He then became hungry,” an accurate, very readable translation of the Greek wording where a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used. The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and the NKJV translates this identical verb in an identical manner. In the KJV, however, this identical verb in Mark 11:12 is translated differently than it is in Matt. 4:2, using a much less precise translation than that found in the NKJV,

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (KJV, all editions)

Please explain to us why the very same words in a similar context are translated one way in Matthew’s gospel and another way with a different meaning in Mark’s gospel, and tell us which translation in the KJV is correct and which ones are not.


I am including here some notes from a word study that I performed some years ago:

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. KJV, 1611
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted fourtie dayes, and fourtie nightes, he was afterwarde an hungred. Bishop’s Bible, 1568
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted fourtie dayes, and fourtie nights, he was afterward hungrie. Geneva Bible, 1587
Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted fourtye dayes and fourtye nightes he was afterward an hungred. Tyndale, 1534
Mat 4:2 And whanne he hadde fastid fourti daies and fourti nyytis, aftirward he hungride. Wycliffe, 1385

From Webster’s Third New International Dictionary: ahungered adj (ME ahungred, anhungred, fr. a-, an- + hungred hungered] archaic : made hungry : very hungry

From The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles: Ahungered, ppl. a. arch. ME. [Aliteration of †of hungered : —OE. of hyngrod, pa. pple. Of ofhyngrian to Hunger.] = Anhungered. Also †Ahungry a.

From The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principles: Hungered, a. arch. ME. [partly aphet. f. A-hungered, partly pa. pple. of Hunger v. 5.] Hungry: famished, starved.

A`hun´gered

a.

1.

Pinched with hunger; very hungry.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

Ahungered

Definition: AHUNGERED​

AHUNGERED​ Adjective​ 1. Pinched with hunger; very hungry. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Note: Ahungered \A*hun"gered\, adjective. [Prefix a- hungered.]. (Websters 1913)

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Ah/Ahungered.html

Ahungered - 2 dictionary results

a⋅hun⋅gered​

/əˈhʌŋgərd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-huhng-gerd] Show IPA –adjective Archaic.

very hungry.

---

​

Origin:
1375–1425; late ME ahungred, equiv. to a- a- 2 + hungred (ptp. of hungren to hunger ), modeled on athirst

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Matt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.

Matt. 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matt. 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Matt. 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Matt. 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

Matt. 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

Matt. 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Mark 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Luke 6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

 

[Logos1560]

I have seen more than 4 variations in KJV editions at Matthew 4:2.

Matthew 4:2 [see Matt. 12:1, 21:18, 25:42; Luke 4:2] [was afterward hungrie--1560 Geneva]

afterward was hungry (1824 Boothroyd)

was afterwards hungry (1784 Piguenit) (1842 Bernard)

afterward He was hungry (2023 Sayers)

was afterward hungry (1991 AMG) (2002, 2010 KJVER) (1833 WEB) (1851 Cone)

was afterwards an hungred (1743 Oxford) {1816 London} (1700 MP) (1790 MH) (1797 Guyse) (1801 Hopkins)

was afterwards a hungered (1819 ABS) (1845 Harding) (1846 Portland)

was afterwards an hungered (1816 Albany) (1831 Boston NT)

was afterwards an-hungered {1795 London}

was afterward an hungered (1754, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1783 Oxford) {1655, 1767, 1853 London} (1789, 1791, 1793, 1796, 1827, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1801 Dublin) (1774 Fortescu) (1792, 1821 Brown) (1798 Baxter) (1804 MH) (1814 Cummings) (1814, 1832 Scott) (1814 Woodward) (1815 Carey) (1816 Hardford) (1825, 1833 Clarke) (1827, 1843 ABS) (1834 Coit) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1840 Roby) (1970, 1976 TN) (1973, 1976 REG) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (RRB) (1984 AMG) (1988 IBS) (1991, 2012 FWP) (2010 ZOND) (CNB) (2012 Biblica) (2013 HMB) (2024 FGWB)

was afterward an-hungered {1747 London}

was afterward a hungered (1829, 1888, 1894 ABS) (1841 Thomas) (1945 World)

was afterward ahungered (1853, 1855, 1858, 1860, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (WMCRB)

was afterward a-hungered [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2006 PENG)

was afterward an-hungred [1743, 1747, 1758, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769 Cambridge] {1750, 1753, 1760, 1763 London} (1770 Dodd) (1774 Bristol) (1776 Birmingham)

was afterward an hungred (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1775 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[JD731]

@Craigbythesea​

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is sadly confused and obscure.

The NKJV is very plain and easy to read here, “He then became hungry,” an accurate, very readable translation of the Greek wording where a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used. The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and the NKJV translates this identical verb in an identical manner. In the KJV, however, this identical verb in Mark 11:12 is translated differently than it is in Matt. 4:2, using a much less precise translation than that found in the NKJV,

Before we go any further please give the best three passages in your English or Greek Bible where God expresses his desire that his Bible be very plain and easy to read.

I can quote several passages, and have, that expresses God's desire that it be written in a manner that keeps people, perhaps you, from understanding it.

The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and the NKJV translates this identical verb in an identical manner.

This is pure silliness. You are interested in things like this, but God is not. You can learn everything there is to know about the Greek language and still not know God and die and go to hell.

Me thinks you are interested in self exaltation. This seems to be about you and your ability to parse Greek verbs. There is no Bible that one can understand if they are not saved. The proof of that is the fact that God did not even write a Bible to anyone before our Lord Jesus Christ died for our salvation and rose from the dead. That was four thousand years of no Bible. When Jesus our Lord died and rose again he raised up an apostle to the nations and what he said to the nations he wrote in 13 letters. It is the only scripture he is ever going to write to the nations in time or eternity.

We in this age, are the only people who have ever occupied this earth that have had the wonderful privilege of having the mind of Christ in written words and the Holy Ghost to teach its meaning to us. That is something to praise God for.

You say, well, Israel had the scriptures. They sure did for 1500 of those 4K pre Jesus years but they did not gain enough understanding from them to even recognize the Messiah and Son of God from them even though they had John the Baptist, a voice of God from heaven, and miracles done before their eyes to receive him for who he said he was. The thing that was missing is the essential thing each of us must have to know him and that something is his presence IN US. The OT saints were justified by believing God saying things they did not understand but by believing them in spite of it.

We can understand God today, if you have him in you. If not, parse all the Greek verbs you can find and tell everybody you see how smart you are, but be warned, God is not impressed. The message to you is, "ye must be born again."

 

[Craigbythesea]

Before we go any further please give the best three passages in your English or Greek Bible where God expresses his desire that his Bible be very plain and easy to read.

I can quote several passages, and have, that expresses God's desire that it be written in a manner that keeps people, perhaps you, from understanding it.



This is pure silliness. You are interested in things like this, but God is not. You can learn everything there is to know about the Greek language and still not know God and die and go to hell.

Me thinks you are interested in self exaltation. This seems to be about you and your ability to parse Greek verbs. There is no Bible that one can understand if they are not saved. The proof of that is the fact that God did not even write a Bible to anyone before our Lord Jesus Christ died for our salvation and rose from the dead. That was four thousand years of no Bible. When Jesus our Lord died and rose again he raised up an apostle to the nations and what he said to the nations he wrote in 13 letters. It is the only scripture he is ever going to write to the nations in time or eternity.

We in this age, are the only people who have ever occupied this earth that have had the wonderful privilege of having the mind of Christ in written words and the Holy Ghost to teach its meaning to us. That is something to praise God for.

You say, well, Israel had the scriptures. They sure did for 1500 of those 4K pre Jesus years but they did not gain enough understanding from them to even recognize the Messiah and Son of God from them even though they had John the Baptist, a voice of God from heaven, and miracles done before their eyes to receive him for who he said he was. The thing that was missing is the essential thing each of us must have to know him and that something is his presence IN US. The OT saints were justified by believing God saying things they did not understand but by believing them in spite of it.

We can understand God today, if you have him in you. If not, parse all the Greek verbs you can find and tell everybody you see how smart you are, but be warned, God is not impressed. The message to you is, "ye must be born again."

I am familiar with some men who are not only fluent in Greek and Latin, but also in Hebrew and numerous other Semitic languages and yet their neighbors know them only for the excellent quality of their lives and their love for God and His word. I am, unfortunately, also familiar with some men who wear “Jesus Saves” t-shirts and yet their neighbors know them only for the poor quality of their lives and their worship of ignorance rather than God. Furthermore, I have never said or believed that God expresses in the Bible His desire that His Bible be very plain and easy to read. However, as I have written and know for a fact, Matthew 4:2 is translated very plainly and accurately and is easy to read in the New Revised Standard Version,

2. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished.

Moreover, I believe and know from the Bible, my observations as a pastor, and my personal experience that when a man is genuinely saved his old man is fatally crucified with Christ on the cross and he becomes a new man in Christ.

 

[Logos1560]

Before we go any further please give the best three passages in your English or Greek Bible where God expresses his desire that his Bible be very plain and easy to read.

What is one Biblical principle that would apply to Bible translation and its purpose? "And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8). "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). “They [the words] are all plain to him that understand” (Prov. 8:9).

Perhaps on such verses as these and others, believers including the early English Bible translators have built one aspect of their views concerning the translation of God's Word.

Perhaps the verses that would indicate that a Bible translation should be understandable may be some of the same ones that indicate the need for making Bible translations. If there is no need for a Bible translation to be understandable and accurate, perhaps there is no need for any Bible translations.

 

[JD731]

What is one Biblical principle that would apply to Bible translation and its purpose? "And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8). "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). “They [the words] are all plain to him that understand” (Prov. 8:9).

Perhaps on such verses as these and others, believers including the early English Bible translators have built one aspect of their views concerning the translation of God's Word.

Perhaps the verses that would indicate that a Bible translation should be understandable may be some of the same ones that indicate the need for making Bible translations. If there is no need for a Bible translation to be understandable and accurate, perhaps there is no need for any Bible translations.

I think if you will take some time to mull over the historical settings of your scriptures references in their context you will understand that you have actually made my points perhaps better than I did.

Who was the first non Israelite person to ever be sought out by God for salvation and what was the attitude of this man about the Jewish scriptures? Are his words about Isaiah 53 not sufficient evidence of why God never sent bibles to the nations before the cross of Christ.

Until Jesus Christ came to take away our sins, securing a way for his indwelling presence in each individual believer in him, men were taught by creation, conscience, and experience. The words in the scriptures expresses the thoughts of God, something he says in Isa 55 are far above our capacity as finite men to think. Therefore the one constant from the beginning of creation in the justification of sinners throughout all time is FAITH in what God says to us. The evidence shows that justification is not dependent on what God writes to us. Nothing has changed concerning this over the dispensations. It remains that (justifying) Faith cometh by hearing the word of God.

So the scriptures are not for unsaved men but for saved men. We today are the only people in God's creation that have been given his written words with the capacity to understand them, his Spirit indwelling our bodies. The first New Testament writing of scripture was not until 45 AD, the epistle of James, and this was five (5) years after God had opened the door of faith to gentiles at the home of Cornelius in Acts 10. Many had already been saved till this time of the first epistle and all at the testimony of a witness of the power of God to save in the name of Jesus Christ, who had died and been buried and had risen from the dead. When the first epistle of Paul, Galatians, was written in 49 AD multitudes of gentiles had already been born again by the preaching of the gospel of God but Paul had not written a word of scripture yet.

There is a reason then that God has given this age the written scriptures with instructions for gentiles through the apostle Paul and new instruction for Jews through Peter. It is because of our weak flesh and because we have not been fully redeemed at this time. We are waiting on the redemption of our bodies and while we are in these bodies we have an earnest of the Spirit. We as children of God have not been removed from the presence and even the power of sin in this world but also the possibility and the probability of sinning. However we are fully redeemed and have an advocate with the Father when we fail, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

But, there is a time when we will be delivered from the power and presence and possibility of sin and when all Christians from all the years are gathered and glorified in an instant and taken to the presence of the Father. The scriptures written to us to instruct us will have been proven true and complete for us at that time.

There is a good chance that those who misuse the scriptures for their own ends are deceived and have not been born again of the Spirit of Christ. They approach the scriptures on worldly principles that does not work in the spiritual realm. Some Christians are deceived into believing them. There is a great deal of deceit going on concerning the scriptures.

There seems to likewise be a reason that God wanted his words recorded for the preachers in the style of English that he chose in the KJV. God is different from us and certain things are preserved for us.

 

[Logos1560]

There is a great deal of deceit going on concerning the scriptures.

There seems to be a great deal of deceit concerning the Scriptures among KJV-only advocates who have deceived themselves or who have been deceived by others into believing exclusive only claims for the KJV that are not true and scriptural.

According to a just application of scriptural truths, God would have a controversy with the making of unrighteous judgments, the use of unjust measures/standards, the use of fallacies, and the bearing of false witness or the making of misleading or false allegations evident in KJV-only writings. A consistent, just application of clear scriptural truths has demonstrated and would demonstrate the unsoundness of key aspects of modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching. KJV-only teaching mixes in assertions that are not true. Should this inconsistent, mixed bag of modern KJV-only doctrine be blindly trusted?

In relationship to the topic of this thread concerning archaic English in the KJV, KJV-only authors make non-true claims concerning the number of archaic words in the KJV, a non-true claim that the KJV has a built-in dictionary for all its words, a non-true claim that there are no archaic words found in the KJV, a non-true claim that the KJV only rarely updated archaic words or language in the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles, a non-true claim that archaic words should be kept unchanged in the KJV instead of being updated, and a non-true claim that the KJV is easier to read and understand than the NKJV and other post-1611 English Bibles. All KJV-only authors do not make all these claims, but they are actual claims that have been made by KJV-only authors.

A great deal of deceit concerning the Scriptures can be found in the over 200 books that advocate a modern KJV-only view.