Difficult Words

If language changes enough that we need a dictionary, then hasn't it changed enough that a new translation would be beneficial?

Talk about duplicitous...

 

SL, no one even remotely suggested we shouldn't study the Bible, That's absolutely ridiculous. Of coures we should study the Bible. But that isn't what the verse says. It's obvious the "problem" is yours.

BTW, you might look into changing your screen name, SL. Your mind is made up and you're not at all willing to learn, as you have shown repeatedly.

 

Not a wise position at all, Thumper. A living language changes over the course of time. What was a good rendering in 1611 isn't necessarily a good rendering today. As language changes, the words used to convey the message must sometimes change in order to keep the true meaning that was first written.

BTW, Thumper, the only "Bible correctors" I know are those who would "correct" any translation that isn't one of the KJVs. Many KJVOs like Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger are notorious Bible correctors. Are you a Bible corrector, Thumper?

 

Not true, Samuel. There are many who love and trust the KJVs. We also love and trust modern Bible translations. Modern Bible translations are gifts from God just as the KJVs are gifts from God. There are those of us who stand firmly against the incorrect opinion that there's only one English translation that's the true word of God. See the difference?

What'll get folks "flogged without further question" is the promotion of the KJVO position. When we Bible believers stand firmy against what we believe is a false, man-made myth about a particular Bible translation we're NOT standing against the KJVs.

 

Ed

 

Would you recommend EdSutton as the instructor for this task?



Hmmm! I guess I should take that as a "No!" ??

Actually, somehow, I didn't think you would recommend EdSutton.

How about Language Cop?

Ed

 

Did you mean to say "mulch"? Here ya' go. They'll help!









Ed

 

Then by your own definition, Thumper, modern readers don't have the word of God at all. The various KJVs have human errors in them as well as the modern translations. But a human error here and there doesn't change the entire message of Scripture. If one error disqualifies a Bible translation from being the word of God, then NO English Bible translation is the word of God. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the KJVs have errors in this thread, but Ahaziah couldn't possibly have been both 22 (2 Kings 8:26) and 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) at the same point in time, no matter how KJVOs bend over backward and twist all truth and logic in an effort to legitimize this obvious error.

God's word IS perfect - the message is unchanged in the various legitimate English Bible translations we have available to us today. The KJVs as well as the legitimate modern translations all teach Jesus' deity, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His cruel death on the cross, His burial, His glorious and triumphant resurrection, His ascension, His current postion in heaven, His intercession for us, His eventual return, His millennial kingdom, and a new heaven and a new earth. If the messsage is unchanged then how can you accuse modern Bible translations of being in error and therefore not the word of God?

The problem with KJVOs is that you fail to realize God doesn't care about preserving a particular set of English words. English didn't exist when the Bible was written. God cares much more about preserving the message Scripture gives us. If God's intention was to preserve only particular words then we would have to do away with Bible translations in all modern languages and revert to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages.

Hmmm...no mention of specific words here. What's being preached? Right - the message.

What have we heard? Specific words? Nope! We have heard the message.

What has beed heard from the beginning? Certain words? No - the message!

On one side of the coin there's God preserving His message to us humans. He has preserved the message for many centuries and in multiple Bible translations. On the other side of the coin there are KJVOs who oppose God and who try to preserve a particular set of words from a language that didn't exist when the Bible was written.

 

Are you kidding? How can you honestly say that? You made multiple major and minor mistakes throughout the thread. These are just a sampling --

First, there was the whole 2 Timothy 2:15 "study" debacle (in which you cited the wrong definition based on word form). Second, there was the misapplication of the Flesh-Kincaid grade level test to the issue of difficult words. Third, there was the misleading 'chart' (with the erroneous capitalization). Next, there was at least one objective goof in the list (concerning Esther 1:6). But the most serious problem was the false premise given in the OP (“do the archaic words in the King James, merit a new translation?”) which you never honestly "address".

 

BT, you're gonna lose every argument over 2 Tim. 2:15. 400 years ago, study also meant 'endeavor, strive, as does the Greek spoudazo. But we no longer use 'study' in this manner. Thus, the newer versions are correct when they say 'be diligent, endeavor, strive'.

While the KJV is correct here for the time it was written, that time is long past.

1 Thess. 4:11"And that ye study to be quiet..."

Does that make much sense in modern English? Not unless one uses the archaic "be diligent" definition of 'study'.

 

In regards to 2 Tim 2:15 it is a fact that the vast majority of people (Christians included) could not read during that time period. Only about 2% of the people could read. So taking into account the fact that not many could read, it would be impossible for most of them to "study", but all of them could be diligent to obey the word.

 

"But they all of them" is rather awkward English.(Rip said in passing through.)

 

I just thought of two more meanings for 'study' -- decidedly non-academic meanings. One is from the Hymn "Down By The Riverside" wriiten/sung sometime after the Civil War.One of the lines goes:"I ain't gonna' study war no more (or 'mo')". Somehow I don't think a pen and paper were needed for this kind of 'study'.

Then,the phrase more common in the past especially among country folks was :"I'll have to study on that." That simply meant that I'll have to ponder that -- give it some thought.

 

There's no problem here at all-the KJV was written in English current for 400 years ago, & the language has changed a great deal over those 400 years. And if GOD had intended for us to be stuck in the past, He wouldn'ta allowed the language to change.

 

Try looking at the word "conversation" in the KJV and see if it is actually true to the meaning of the text.

Just imagine someone saying, " 1Pet 3:1, 2, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear."[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

The old John and Yoko syndrome at work!

I don't have to "imagine" what I already experienced!:godisgood:

 

Your theology is based on experience?

 

Can we actually refer to the KJVO position as theology since it isn't even hinted at in Scripture?

 

I wonder which KJV Jesus used?