Bound to words used in 1611?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jarthur001, Jun 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why do KJV-only say we are bound to the words used in the 1611 and that no one should ever change these words for this would be twisting Gods Word, when the tranlators of the 1611 did not feel this way?

    *******
    Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example,

    if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT;

    if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE;

    if one where PAIN, never ACHE;

    if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc.

    Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader.

    For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables?????

    why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one of newfangledness called [NOTE: Greek omitted but was a dispute over the word for "a bed"] [Niceph. Calist. lib.8. cap.42.] though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning "Cucurbita" (to which reading the people had been used) into "Hedera". [S. Jerome in 4. Ionae. See S. Aug: epist. 10.] Now if this happens in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain great Philosopher, that he should say , that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire: so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always, and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished forever, we might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, "To be partial in ourselves and judges of evil thoughts." Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.

    Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.

    But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
     
  2. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are two types (at least) of KJVO people.
    There are the ones that simply have compared and see doctrines weakened on modern translations and there are those who are legalists just looking for another rule to follow that will make them better than everyone else.

    FWIW, I use the KJV
     
  3. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    And...so do I. The KJV is a very good translation and I see no need to change. I was once in the KJV only camp until I read all the lies that are told. I have found NO ground to stand on and proclaim..."This is the only translation for the English". I use the KJV, I carry the KJV for I like it. When I study I use any means that will help me understand....and that is a long list.

    But I'm not about to say that those that read other translations are wrong. I make post about the 1611, not to bring down the version, but to show errors in logic of the KJVO.
     
  4. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    No, we should not be bound to any one set of words. If printers did not omit the translators to the reader, the KJVO myth would never have gotten started. I understand on one hand why printers did this, but on the other hand, it has caused more problems than the savings were worth. I think that the translators to the reader should be put back in all new KJVs printed today - with modern mass production, it is not that expensive to put it back in.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The AV translators wrote in the best, most modern English available to them, that they felt would convey the meanings of the various verses. THEY were not bound by the words written by their predecessors such as Coverdale, and WE are certainly bound by THEIR words.

    While God reveals much of the future to us, He does NOT reveal the future of language. Therefore I use the language I was born into, along with many of the changes that have occurred during my lifetime.

    The KJV is frozen in time, but the actual word of God is NOT.
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,158
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Actually, that is not entirely true. The KJV translators wrote in a very stylized, formal manner, often reaching back into Middle English for verb forms that were considered archaic even in 1611 for the purpose of differentiating between the number, gender, and person of most pronouns and verb forms.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Are you referring to the pronouns such as ye, thy, thou, etc. & the verb endings "-eth, -est", etc?

    I've seen these used in contemporary works such as those of John Milton, and I didn't know just exactly when they fell outta use, kinda like Easter for Passover. I know town criers in colonial America hollered "Hear YE!"

    But I don't believe the AV men meant to write in a form of English not readily understood by the average Britisher.
     
  8. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,158
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Yes.
    If you would read "To the Reader" you would note there is nary a "thee" or a "ye" except when quoting an earlier English version.
    They meant to do exactly as they did. They "average Britisher" of that day could hardly read at all. When they said why they did as they did are you suggesting they lied about it?
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Whole point is, the AV 1611 was written for the English users of that day, same as modern English versions are written for today. We are not bound to any one version nor English form.
     
  10. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    No sir

    The KJB is as current as tomorrows paper!God intended it to be wriiten then and to be read today thats why it hasnt changed in over 400 years and will never change cause Jesus is the same yesterday,today and forever! Thank you heavenly Father for your Word!:Fish:
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3: //The KJV is frozen in time, but the actual word of God is NOT.//

    There are two words of God:

    1. The written Word of God (rhema) - the Holy Bible
    2. The Living Word of God (logos) - Messiah Iesus

    Neither of these words of God are frozen in time, both
    are living.

    William S. Correa: //The KJB is as current as tomorrows paper!

    Amen, Brother William S. Correa -- Preach it! :thumbs:
    Of course, so are the many other Bibles in English and other languages
    that God has, in His Devine Providence, preserved for this generation.


    William S. Correa: //God intended it to be wriiten then and to be read today
    thats why it hasnt changed in over 400 years and will never change
    cause Jesus is the same yesterday,today and forever!//

    Here is a fast way to test which KJV
    you have by the CHANGES in the KJV:
    -------------------------------
    Which King James Version do you use?
    Here is a sample test:

    1. Ruth III:15d (KJV1611):

    ... and he went into the citie.

    2. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769):

    ... and she went into the city.

    3. Ruth 3:15 (KJV1873):

    ... and he went into the city.
    -------------------------------
     
    #11 Ed Edwards, Jun 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2006
  12. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    1/2 point is

    An A for effort indeed and sincerly felt; But sincerly "WRONG" for we walk by FAITH not by feeelings! If God wrote the scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew for that day do they still speak that way or not? Or did they change to accomodate their itchy ears that most of the World has to try and justify their FEELINGS about the Word! I am not for sale no way NO Sir!:praise:
     
  13. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm... Then EVERY English version falls into this trap, including the KJV [whatever version/edition].
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    More KJVO double standard.
     
  15. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double?

    More like A two edged SWORD (KJB); Not Double vision!:laugh:
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trap?

    More like the blind leading the blind!:laugh:
     
    #16 william s. correa, Jun 27, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2006
  17. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    My thoughts exactly, Will, my thoughts exactly...

    You see, God used men to write in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Any other language outside of those original writings is either a copy of those writings (if in the same language), or is a translation (if in a different language). ALL copies and/or translations are written by man... and that includes your Nehushtan. The KJV is a translation of the copies of the words that God had men to write. It wasn't handwritten by God in 1611.
     
    #17 Trotter, Jun 28, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2006
  18. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obviously you don't see it that way, Will. You sold out to the KJVO hype and myth some time ago, didn't you? I feel sorry for you, Will, and I keep you and others who have succumbed to the KJVO myth in my prayers. Maybe one day you will actually see the folly that comes from following the non-biblical KJVO myth!

    :Fish:
     
  19. Jarthur001

    Jarthur001
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    5,701
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed...you are good. You aways seem to get your point across without a fight.

    Keep up the good post.:cool:
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Mr. Correa:The KJB is as current as tomorrows paper!

    And so are the older versions, as well as the newer ones. There's NO "one size fits all" version.

    God intended it to be wriiten then and to be read today thats why it hasnt changed in over 400 years and will never change cause Jesus is the same yesterday,today and forever!

    Yes, God intended for it to be written then...just as He had intended for Wycliffe to write in 1384, Tyndale in 1534, Coverdale & friends in 1557, the "bishops" in 1568, and the modern translators of this era.

    OF COURSE the KJV should never change-its translators are all dead.


    Thank you heavenly Father for your Word!

    Yes, thank You for continuing to provide Your word in the languages of TODAY.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...