Webster's Holy Bible

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Good points Brian. And didn't the NASB and now NASB Update do this?

Generally, yes. They tried to retain the "reverence" in addressing God, which is alright - but they are using "thee" and "thou" for the wrong reason: because they sound reverent rather than because they are simply singular pronouns.

But when I made those comments, I was thinking in the context of Webster and the KJV. Do you think an update of this nature to the KJV could still be called a "KJV"? Maybe not. Green's LITV and MKJV maybe good examples of this.

 

[tyndale1946]

Webster quote;
"Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of God'."

That is a good point and I want to launch from that point a question. Does the changing of your version change your theology? I know it does and would like to use a scripture that we are all familiar with to prove the same. You may not agree with me but lets use KJV... John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This is the theology and doctrine that the King James is based on.

So you brethren can have equal time and you will not think I am partial lets examine the same scripture from your versions. You brethren that want to bring in the same from other versions before the King James feel free I want us to understand fully what John 3:16 says.

NASB... John 3:16 "For God so (23) loved the world, that He (24) gave His (25) only begotten Son, that whoever (26) believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

NIV... John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[6] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

NKJV... John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Whosoever believeth and whoever believes are two different sides of theology. The King James interpretation is that the one that believeth is already in the covenant of eternal grace and is saved already that is why he believeth! Whoever believes from your other version puts your eternal Salvation in your hands because it is your belief that makes it so! We believe because we already have eternal life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and you believe to obtain that, that you already have! Your belief does not make it so and the KJV says your interpretation is in error and disagrees theologically with all other versions not ancestors of The King James!... Since the theology of God has not changed neither has the True Word Of God... The King James Bible!... Brother Glen

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Does the changing of your version change your theology?

It can, but it doesn't have to. Alternatively, you can change your theology without changing your version.

Whosoever believeth and whoever believes are two different sides of theology. The King James interpretation is that the one that believeth is already in the covenant of eternal grace and is saved already that is why he believeth! Whoever believes from your other version puts your eternal Salvation in your hands because it is your belief that makes it so!

First, an interpretation belongs to the reader, not to the text. Second, your statements made no sense.

Are you making this difference based on the "-eth" ending on "believe"? I have seen KJVOs erroneously do this before, especially those comfortable with Riplinger.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Generally, yes. They tried to retain the "reverence" in addressing God, which is alright - but they are using "thee" and "thou" for the wrong reason: because they sound reverent rather than because they are simply singular pronouns.

One thing about "Thess and thous". It is often pointed out (rightly) that the Hebrew and Greek did not have special pronouns for addressing God. But what is often missed is that the English language grew to incorporate the use of old pronouns for the addressign of God, so for a version to do so like the NASB or RSV is not really in error. Nevertheless, the NASB Update dropped these forms fo pronouns.

But when I made those comments, I was thinking in the context of Webster and the KJV. Do you think an update of this nature to the KJV could still be called a "KJV"? Maybe not. Green's LITV and MKJV maybe good examples of this.

I think generally that the NKJV does a better job than both the NKJV and the LITV.

 

[ChristianCynic]

< Whosoever believeth and whoever believes are two different sides of theology. The King James interpretation is that the one that believeth is already in the covenant of eternal grace and is saved already that is why he believeth! >

Ridiculous insipid balderdash! 'Believes' and 'believeth' are both 3rd person present tense, indicative mood. The '-eth' form has simply not been in common use among the large majority of English speakers for more than 3 centuries.

 

[DocCas]

The est/eth endings were not in common usage in 1611 either. They were included in the version of 1611 to help the reader identify the 2nd and 3rd person. Just as the pronouns used in the version of 1611 were not in common usage at that time (just read "To the Reader" to note the absence of such pronouns) but were used as a device to inform the reader of the case/number of the pronouns in question.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by DocCas:
The est/eth endings were not in common usage in 1611 either. They were included in the version of 1611 to help the reader identify the 2nd and 3rd person. Just as the pronouns used in the version of 1611 were not in common usage at that time (just read "To the Reader" to note the absence of such pronouns) but were used as a device to inform the reader of the case/number of the pronouns in question.

???
Both -eth endings and singular/plural pronouns are in the "To the Reader".

 

[mesly]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:

Whosoever believeth and whoever believes are two different sides of theology. The King James interpretation is that the one that believeth is already in the covenant of eternal grace and is saved already that is why he believeth! Whoever believes from your other version puts your eternal Salvation in your hands because it is your belief that makes it so! We believe because we already have eternal life through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and you believe to obtain that, that you already have! Your belief does not make it so and the KJV says your interpretation is in error and disagrees theologically with all other versions not ancestors of The King James!... Since the theology of God has not changed neither has the True Word Of God... The King James Bible!... Brother Glen

Do you think that we have two (or more) lines of faith being propagated now? One being that taught in the KJV and the other being taught in the newer versions? And of course this would lead to one being true and the other false. I don't ask this to be divisive. This question has been on my mind for quite sometime now. Is this a real issue?

 

[Chris Temple]

Here's the next paragraph by Webster:

But in the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others, obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very injurious.

Webster states correctly that:
1. In 2 or 3 centuries, the English language has changed suffciently enough that:
a. Beauty has been impaired.
b. The sense of meaning has been obscured
c. The meaning of the original languages are most important.
2. Some words have ceased to be used in contemporary English, therefore making the KJV not understood in some areas.
3. Readers of the Bible should not need access to commentaries and dictionaries in order to understand the English words. This is nto to be misconstrued, as is often the case with KJVOs, with the spiritual understanding of Scripture which is only possible by the presence of the Spirit in the reader. The English words should not be a barrier to common understanding.
4. Words change meaning ("let", "suffer") and when the words used do not reflect the meaning of the originals, they actually alter the Word of God. This means that in many instances, the KJV has ceased to present the very Words of God to a modern readership.
5. "This circumstance is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very injurious".

[ July 15, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]