And thus you have proved my point exactly. You can't have a person 'working diliegntly' toward something unless they are 'studious' about what they are doing, otherwise they will have no direction and end up all over the map - so to speak. And one can not be considered wise (nor godly) if they are studious but doing nothing with what they have learned. Therefore the truth of the matter is that the word biblically is correct because the very nature of the definition encompasses both aspects equally.robycop3 said:
-
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!
study-work diligently
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
Yes, please do! I have a friend that has a doctorate in English who also teaches at a Christian college and he would be interested in this also.mcdirector said:
Added later in the morning--
My friend who has three degrees in English including a terminal degree says that he has never heard the claim that "the words used in the KJV, and the English language at that time, had a more DEFINITE meaning than the "modern" words do today. Changing them to "modern" words or paraphrases does not give the same EXACT meaning as the word used in the KJV."
I await the 'expert proof' that this is true.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll post one source, the rest you can easily "google" yourself.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/mcafee3.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/mcafee3.html
He was applauding the KJV, nowhere did I read the statement that, "the words used in the KJV, and the English language at that time, had a more DEFINITE meaning than the "modern" words do today. Changing them to "modern" words or paraphrases does not give the same EXACT meaning as the word used in the KJV" or even words to that effect.Baptist4life said:
Notwithstanding that it was written in 1912, long before MV's came on the scene (with the exception of the 1901 ASV.)
The burden of proof falls on you. You made the claim. To this point there is nothing to back it up, so it remains an unfounded claim. I'm not going to waste precious time slogging through KJVO websites to find your 'facts' for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
mcdirector
Active Member
Baptist4life said:
Please direct me to some experts supporting the fact that language was more specific in 1600 than today. I'll gladly google those experts to see what they have to say on that specific topic. I'd love to know more
That's a good article - nicely written and accurate from a cursory read, but it's about the Bible as literature.
Those are MY words. You are not going to find that exact phrase in any article I find for you. BTW, that's pretty common knowledge. If you want to find out if what I posted is true, then that's YOUR job. I don't take very well to people "ordering" me around on an internet forum.Mexdeaf said:
What I see is an absolute awful bias against the KJV being disguised as being "against the KJVO cult". Rippon is filling pages of a thread with his posts about how MV's are better/easier to understand. That has nothing to do with the KJVO people! It purely a downgrading of the KJV.
The KJV is an EXCELLENT, ACCURATE, EASY AS ANY OTHER TRANSLATION to understand IF you take the time to study it, as you NEED TO DO with any MV also!
This "the KJV is obsolete and hard to understand" rhetoric gets old. As I said, I'm NOT KJVO, but I AM KJV preferred. It's a wonderful translation that is well loved by many and I hate to see it discredited by so many of you. Enough already...read what version you want, LEAVE the KJV alone. YOUR statements about it are ridiculous and unproven, but I'm not DEMANDING you to "prove" them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Baptist4life said:
Well it does have a diminished status in 2008 because the language it uses is so far removed from the language of today.Thanks for the plug though!
WOW! That is an incredible (as in "not credible") statement.If you really believe that you are demonstrating that you have absolutely no sense of perspective.
Take two unregenerate,unchurched people of the same peer group.Have them both read some passages in Job.One person will read from one of the KJV's,the other individual will read from the TNIV.Ask them to summarize what they have read.Or ask them specific questions about the contents.Any sane-thinking person would know from the start that the KJV-reading one would have great difficulty in understanding the renderings.The TNIV-reader would have a much better grasp of the reading material.
The KJV is "EASY AS ANY OTHER TRANSLATION".That contention is pure bunkum.
You were unintentionally humorous with that comment.LOL.
Joan Platt, The Review of English Studies, Vol. 2, No. 6 (Apr., 1926), pp. 189-196:
"The tendency to specialise the meanings of words, in order to use them in restricted senses arising as the needs of expression multiply, is seen from the above to be fully operative in the eighteenth century. In the original formation of vocabulary it must necessarily have found an important place since practically every word we use is a restricted sense of some other word or root. In modern times, however, it does not appear in this primitive form; it is shown rather in a selection of a shade of meaning in order that a phrase or word already expressive may become still more minutely so. The suggestion to be drawn from the above selection of idioms is that it was the eighteenth century that was peculiarly the period in which the restrictive tendency worked in preparation for modern colloquial English. The difference between the above specialised meanings and the unspecialised meanings from which they developed is the difference between the tone of colloquial idiom at the present day and the tone of the same medium in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." (pp. 194-195)
"Present-day speech has more words for the same idea, but they are at once more colourless and less rich than colloquial English up to about the time of Swift." (p. 196)
"The tendency to specialise the meanings of words, in order to use them in restricted senses arising as the needs of expression multiply, is seen from the above to be fully operative in the eighteenth century. In the original formation of vocabulary it must necessarily have found an important place since practically every word we use is a restricted sense of some other word or root. In modern times, however, it does not appear in this primitive form; it is shown rather in a selection of a shade of meaning in order that a phrase or word already expressive may become still more minutely so. The suggestion to be drawn from the above selection of idioms is that it was the eighteenth century that was peculiarly the period in which the restrictive tendency worked in preparation for modern colloquial English. The difference between the above specialised meanings and the unspecialised meanings from which they developed is the difference between the tone of colloquial idiom at the present day and the tone of the same medium in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." (pp. 194-195)
"Present-day speech has more words for the same idea, but they are at once more colourless and less rich than colloquial English up to about the time of Swift." (p. 196)
It's a simple fact that current English is the form best understood by the vast majority of English users worldwide. And to them, "study" means 'examine closely or read with the object of learning'. And that's NOT what the Greek 'spoudazo' means.Jerome said:
Baptist4life said:
You come across more as a KJVP+++++. :laugh:
Like it or not the KJV English is not today's English. Like it or not Rippon has a right to his viewpoint just as you do to yours. Like it or not there is no proof that KJV words are any more accurate than NIV, ESV, TNIV or any other version's words.
No one is messing with the KJV- it stands or falls on it's own merits or lack thereof just as any other version does.
The ability to accurately translate has nothing to do with being a Christian or not. It has much more to do with the qualification to translate a language. Your argument can easily be rebutted with a question. Would you rather have your house built by a godly Christian who knew very little about construction, or a non-Christian who had lots of knowledge and excellent work experience in construction?Askjo said:
And exactly what does "old paths" have to do with any particular version?Salamander said:
BTW, if one were anywhere near consistent, here, one would suggest (1.) the WYC, in English; (2.) the Tyndale and Coverdale translations fro versions in 'Modern English'; and (3.) the Apocrypha must be included for any 'real' Bible, considering that it was included as a part of all English Bibles, until the latter part of the 19th Century, including for 275 years as an integral part of the KJV.
The fact that these three things mentioned above, are seldom seen, if indeed ever seen, shows the hypocrisy of this position, to say the least, IMO.
Your personal opinion, only! While you certainly are entitled to personally hold this opinion, no one else is bound to follow it, by any stretch. Nor are you bound to agree with another's opinion, on this or other matters, as well, and I have never suggested anyone was so required.
Not one verse of Scripture commands, suggests, or even implies any particular translation in any language, anywhere.
Unfortunately the same cannot be said for various members of the BB, from many different perspectives.
(Not that any of said BB members, from any position, have any agendae, you understand!)
Ed