-
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!
The question KJVOs cannot seem to answer
- Thread starter try hard
- Start date
"You" and "thou" go back to the German heritage of the language. Modern German retains two separate forms, each of which is inflected and requires different endings for the verbs.
Another difference between "you" and "thou" is that they, over time, were used for different audiences. "Thou" was the familiar form used in talking with people of equal or lesser rank. "You" was addressed to social superiors.
I have found no good explanation as to why the "thou" forms were abandoned, but it seems they were already rare by 1611, except in poetry and "Church English."
Likely it was part of the general trend to eradicate so many of the inflected forms that were once common.
It's as mysterious as the Great Vowel Shift, the major reason spelling in English is so notoriously nonsensical.
Another difference between "you" and "thou" is that they, over time, were used for different audiences. "Thou" was the familiar form used in talking with people of equal or lesser rank. "You" was addressed to social superiors.
I have found no good explanation as to why the "thou" forms were abandoned, but it seems they were already rare by 1611, except in poetry and "Church English."
Likely it was part of the general trend to eradicate so many of the inflected forms that were once common.
It's as mysterious as the Great Vowel Shift, the major reason spelling in English is so notoriously nonsensical.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
BrianT: //Why would something "perfect" need so many revisions?//
Perhaps perfect is an adjective?
Thus you should have "perfect", "perfecter", and "perfectist"
So the perfect KJV1611 was replaced by the
perfecter KJV1648 was finalized by the perfectist KJV1769
What i want to understand is why KJVs are sold with
no hint inside whatsoever that they are NOT the
same as the KJV of 1611. Can anybody
spell PERFECTIST DECEPTION?
Japheth: "The modern versions ARE from the corrupt line
of text from Alexandria, Egypt."
This is from the Preface to the nKJV MV:
"... Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts ...
However, in spite of their age, some scholars
have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the
autographs, since they often disagree with
one another and show other signs of unreliability.
The Greek text obtained by using these sources
and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text."
Not all "modern verstions" are alike
in being "from the corrupt line of text
from Alexandria, Egypt".
eric_b: //Okay, I have one final question: how would
you translate "y'all come back now, y'hear?"
into the Elizabethan English?//
"Bye." Which is short for the earlier
"God be with ye."
BryanT: "Neato. I'll scratch out the "NIV" embossing
on my Bible and slap on a "KJV" sticker, and all will be well."
Tee Hee. My nKJV already has "KJV" on it
Oh, no, it also had the "Devils paw print"
on the title page, formerly called "the Triquetra".
\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/
BrianT: //Why would something "perfect" need so many revisions?//
Perhaps perfect is an adjective?
Thus you should have "perfect", "perfecter", and "perfectist"
So the perfect KJV1611 was replaced by the
perfecter KJV1648 was finalized by the perfectist KJV1769
What i want to understand is why KJVs are sold with
no hint inside whatsoever that they are NOT the
same as the KJV of 1611. Can anybody
spell PERFECTIST DECEPTION?
Japheth: "The modern versions ARE from the corrupt line
of text from Alexandria, Egypt."
This is from the Preface to the nKJV MV:
"... Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts ...
However, in spite of their age, some scholars
have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the
autographs, since they often disagree with
one another and show other signs of unreliability.
The Greek text obtained by using these sources
and related papyri is known as the Alexandrian Text."
Not all "modern verstions" are alike
in being "from the corrupt line of text
from Alexandria, Egypt".
eric_b: //Okay, I have one final question: how would
you translate "y'all come back now, y'hear?"
into the Elizabethan English?//
"Bye." Which is short for the earlier
"God be with ye."
BryanT: "Neato. I'll scratch out the "NIV" embossing
on my Bible and slap on a "KJV" sticker, and all will be well."
Tee Hee. My nKJV already has "KJV" on it
Oh, no, it also had the "Devils paw print"
on the title page, formerly called "the Triquetra".
Joe Turner
New Member
This whole forum is ridiculous. Tri Hard needs to go back to Sunday school. Take a look at Psalm 12:6-"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." What could that mean? Well, we know that the Bible was written in Hebrew, Arimaic, and Greek. It was translated into Latin, Old Syriac, German, and finally English. SEVEN languages. God chose the method of preserving His word using a purification process.
For example, try reading Jeremiah 36:22-32. READ IT. Notice at the end of the chapter that God added words that were not in the 'original' roll. Both were inspired, both contained all the same words, yet God chose to ADD many like words to the second copy.
Another example is when an author or speaker in the New Testament quotes a passage of scripture from the Old Testament. Words get changed and added, yet all the references remain inspired (2 Timothy 3:16).
God Himself chose to preserve His PERFECT word. If God really did promise that (Psalm 37:13) but did not leave us the original autographs, then His perfect word must exist. Right?
Your question assumes (Tri Hard) that 'perfection' equates to 'no change' and that of course is simply not even a Biblical concept.
Those of you who think Elizabethean English is hard to understand are the same people who rely on Greek and Hebrew lexicons to 'determine' the best meaning. It is simply a matter of being mentally lazy.
For example, try reading Jeremiah 36:22-32. READ IT. Notice at the end of the chapter that God added words that were not in the 'original' roll. Both were inspired, both contained all the same words, yet God chose to ADD many like words to the second copy.
Another example is when an author or speaker in the New Testament quotes a passage of scripture from the Old Testament. Words get changed and added, yet all the references remain inspired (2 Timothy 3:16).
God Himself chose to preserve His PERFECT word. If God really did promise that (Psalm 37:13) but did not leave us the original autographs, then His perfect word must exist. Right?
Your question assumes (Tri Hard) that 'perfection' equates to 'no change' and that of course is simply not even a Biblical concept.
Those of you who think Elizabethean English is hard to understand are the same people who rely on Greek and Hebrew lexicons to 'determine' the best meaning. It is simply a matter of being mentally lazy.
Interesting theory, but not scriptural...
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Eric
Joe Turner
New Member
Eric, it is very scriptual. Your use of Revelation 22:18 has to do with a 'man' adding words. As a Bible believer, I believe God adds words as he pleases and I showed examples of where he did. Wouldn't Revelation 22:18 be better applied to the men on the translating committees who don't really believe God perfectly preserved His word (even though He said He would)? Quoting Revelation 22:18 didn't explain the examples I gave, and you of course don't really believe that passage of scripture because you don't believe that 'the words of the prophecy of this book' are in existence anymore. You can't add to something that doesn't exist, right? Don't use the very book your trying to disprove as a proof text, okay?
Joe Turner
New Member
Of course, that isn't even grammatically correct using modern English (2002). The word 'them' in verse 7 refers back to the antecedent in verse 6 which is the subject 'words'.Originally posted by LRL71:
Perhaps Joe Turner should look at my exegetical analysis of Psalm 12:5-7 on that thread!
God did not say that He would 'preserve' His Word, but rather that He would preserve the poor and needy.
The KJVO's so-called 'doctrine of the preservation of the KJV' is..... unbiblical!
Straw man argument, I've never even implied that King James is not a faithful translation of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture is complete, though, there are no further revelations to come after the Revelation of John. No 67th book or later additions, the revealed Word of God was made complete as soon as John finished recording his Revelation. I think most Bible-nelieving Christians, whether they are KJVO or not, would take exception to the idea that the 1611 King James translators received extra revelations above and beyond the source text. The very idea is heretical.
Your interpretation of Scripture seems to go well beyond the comprehension of plain meaning, rather it seems to be simply twisting things around to support what you've concluded apart from Scripture... I'll read whatever reply you have to this, but I don't think an extended discussion will do any good so I doubt I'll reply to it.
Eric
[ September 22, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
Of course, that isn't even grammatically correct using modern English (2002). The word 'them' in verse 7 refers back to the antecedent in verse 6 which is the subject 'words'.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe Turner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
Perhaps Joe Turner should look at my exegetical analysis of Psalm 12:5-7 on that thread!
God did not say that He would 'preserve' His Word, but rather that He would preserve the poor and needy.
The KJVO's so-called 'doctrine of the preservation of the KJV' is..... unbiblical!
Uh, wrong-o. In English, maybe, but the OT was written in HEBREW. Antecedents agree in case, number, and gender. Psalm 12:7's pronouns, both 'them', have their antecedents in verse 5, not in verse 6. The antecedent of 'them' and 'them' is 'poor' and 'needy' from verse 5! Again, read the thread on Bible Translations/Versions titled "Psalm 12:5-7". My explanation is there. Perhaps you need to take some Hebrew language courses, and then you will know what you are talking about.........
[ September 22, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]
Excellent! As far as I'm concerned this thread has reached a satisfactory conclusion (though I suppose everyone will keep arguing anyway until yon cattle returneth to their abode
.Eric</font>[/QUOTE]Ummmmmmm.......
I'm sorry gentlemen, but I feel the correct KJVish rephrasing of "y'all come back now, y'hear?" would be "Surely thou returneth unto the place from whence thou goest quickly? I verily say unto thee"
I'm just looking for the verse that says: And the LORD spake unto the people, and also saith unto them "In the year 1611 my Word shalt be published unto thee by my servant James....." etc etc
Pete
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
No way, Jose'. Y'all is 2nd person plural; your statement, with thou, is 2nd person singular.Originally posted by Titus2_1:
I'm sorry gentlemen, but I feel the correct KJVish rephrasing of "y'all come back now, y'hear?" would be "Surely thou returneth unto the place from whence thou goest quickly? I verily say unto thee"
I'm just looking for the verse that says: And the LORD spake unto the people, and also saith unto them "In the year 1611 my Word shalt be published unto thee by my servant James....." etc etc
No use looking for something you know ain't there. But if someone's pet doctrine is not in scripture, I'm sure you know he will take the position 'It means what I say it means,' not that it means neither more nor less than scripture itself says. This Turner character and his 'English as the perfect 7th language' myth is a good example.
Joe Turner
New Member
That is exactly why we disagree. I believe God preserved His word in English, and you believe you have to run to the Hebrew to explain it. When we get to the judgement seat of Christ, I guess we'll see who is right.
[ September 22, 2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
[ September 22, 2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: DocCas ]
ChristianCynic
<img src=/cc2.jpg>
Yeah-- we could make a bet on it. But anything we would wager will disappear or be unavailable for transfer. The only thing that lasts are the words of Jesus (Matthew 24:35), which He did not speak in Englsh. Wonder why He was so ignorant of the right language.
Yes, or to put it in a slightly more cheerful way, in Heaven we'll all agreeOriginally posted by Joe Turner:
That is exactly why we disagree. I believe God preserved His word in English, and you believe you have to run to the Hebrew to explain it. When we get to the judgement seat of Christ, I guess we'll see who is right.
Eric
ummm...ok...thoust...thees...thineselves...ARGH!...Let me sleep on it
Well, most things are in there if you look hard enough...eg "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is in each translation. Allow me to demonstrate with KJV....
(1 Samuel 19:1 KJV) And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David.
(Psalms 48:6 KJV) Fear took hold upon them there, and pain, as of a woman in travail.
(Zephaniah 1:2 KJV) I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.
etc etc etc.
But this probably isn't the thread for that little lesson on context, so I shall shut up now
Pete
Joe Turner
New Member
Yes, or to put it in a slightly more cheerful way, in Heaven we'll all agreeOriginally posted by eric_b:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe Turner:
That is exactly why we disagree. I believe God preserved His word in English, and you believe you have to run to the Hebrew to explain it. When we get to the judgement seat of Christ, I guess we'll see who is right.
Eric</font>[/QUOTE]Now there is something we can agree on!!!
DocCas
New Member
Let's not abuse the use of the quote button. If your post directly follows the post you are replying to, no quote is necessary. If not, quote only the portion you are directly replying to. And, please, don't quote yourself, and the reply, and yourself, and that reply then just say "amen." Remember the two-fold mantra of the Baptist Board. Band Width and Hard Drive Space! Let's conserve it as much as possible.
Thomas Cassidy
Moderator
Thomas Cassidy
Moderator