Difficult Words

Theology? False teaching better describes it.

 

Duh-uh!!

Why - the same one as Moses and Paul used, of course!

Ed

 

The English they used and read must not have changed at all because Moses and Paul were about 1300+ years apart

 

Again, I'll simply say, Heh! Heh! Heh!

Ed

 

When re-reading this thread, in its entirety, a coupla' things caught my eye, in this post, below.

So do I, especially the last thing I will reference from your post. But apparently, you missed it.

Uh- yeah! I had one or two myself over the years. AND, I had the dubious privilege of having to be the 'final authority' for more 750 Students, including those in a giqant Lecture class of more that 725 students, as a grad assistant, in two Bible College Courses, as well, when the tests were "graded" by fellow students, where if one student didn't fully understand the intent of another, or one didn't like the grade he or she received, I was the 'ultimate arbiter' on intent, or what the grade should be.

So yes- I believe I am at least somewhat qualified in the "NowhutAhmean, Vern?" Department, despite your "winking 'smilie'". Bring some of your own graded tests, where you may have less than satisfied with the grade you received, around sometime, and we can discuss them, or in the alternative, if and when you have become the arbiter for, say only 250 students, get with me and we can "compare notes", on the subject. [Incidentally, I believed then (and still do) that I was 'maltreated' as a grad assistant, by the school President, at that time, in his giant lecture class, with the completely arbitrary poor grade I received, from him, that was "one point and actually at least two letters below what I really merited (as well as my associated 'grad assistant', who recieved the same grade as I did), despite my own "best efforts", and the amount of time both of us had invested, and which grades (as well as the treatment I received) was in great manner influenced by the fact that neither of us were willing to allow ourselves to become a 'clone' of him, and especially I was not willing to become any 'little ___' with my own thinking, beliefs, and practices. Neither of us were allowed to teach in the occasional absences of the School President, simply because he was afraid one of us might say something, he did not agree with, becoming the only grad assistants who never received that privilege, in the history of that school, to my knowledge. I'll also believe, to my dying day, that my co-'grad assistant' who has since been gone home to be with the Lord, for about five years, also had his grade negatively influenced, simply because he and I were friends, outside of the class, as well as 'partners' in the class room. Neither of us completed our Th.B. degree there, and both of us dropped out of that program, although my co-assistant, and another of his friends (and a fellow grad, of both of us) the next fall went on to Tennessee Temple Seminary, after that. (I'll also add, at this point, that I was treated extremely well, and very fairly, by my other Professor, and may have actually received a grade from him that was even one or maybe even two points higher than I really merited, FTR, lest anyone think what I am here relating is simply "sour-grapes". However, just as Job in Scripture, I can completely and honestly say, to this day, now 35 years after the fact, that I fully "retained my integrity", at least in this matter. I cannot and do not make any attempt to speak for the then President, whom I do love, to this day, but even should the opportunity present itself, at even no monetary cost to me, to repeat and/or finish my Th.B., if it were "under his leadership", I should not avail myself of it.]

After he resigned (over a moral issue, FTR), I did briefly consider appealing my grade to the new President, and continuing my quest, however, My father had become very ill, my then-current secular employment there effectively ended, where I would have needed to change companies, and work for someone I did not choose, or find a new line of work, and as my mother needed help, with my ill father, I returned to KY to aid them. I have never doubted the choices I made in all this. "It's what you call 'integrity'!"

I fully agree with what you are meaning, and intending here. However, as another poster has already pointed out, this is not what the word here rendered by the KJV as "study" actually means. One good practice, simply does not negate another poor one, nor "cover a multitude of sins", in the translating and exegesis of a verse of Scripture.

First, I want to point out the use of the phrase "Bible corrector", as referring to a non-KJV user is expressly prohibited, according to Rule #9A, in this forum. Dr. Bob, who is the actual author of this rule, either overlooked it, or was forgiving enough to not chide you for its violation, in his post on this forum. Likewise, I'll not engage in any scathing condemnation, but merely ask that you observe this rule, as well as the others of the BB, just as I attempt to observe them, on the Board. I would offer that I must be doing at least something right, for I have not been specifically admonished by any Moderators or Administrators in 3 years and almost 8K posts (Yeah, I have 'lost' >200 in various reformattings and the deletions of complete threads, in that time, which thread deletion(s) happens to be one reason I do not currently frequent the 'Games' forum as often as I once did.) to the Board.

Second, as to the "easily more qualified" bit of the 47 actual KJV translators, let me say that they were exceedingly well qualified, and one would be hard pressed to find that much collective 'Bible qualification' in any one place, at any one time, since the days when Dr. John Wycliffe and John Purvey were working together in his study, and Nicholas de Hereford dropped in 'just to chat',

or the day when William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale, who had left England, in fear for their very lives, having disembarked their ship in Antwerp, were greeted by John Rogers who was standing on the pier.

This acumen of these 47 able scholars would also not be approached again the day that Dr. Benjamin Blayney traveled to Cambridge, to get together with Dr. Thomas Paris, to argue over the best way to render a verse in the now- 1762 revision of the KJV, on which Dr. Paris was working - or

the day that - well, you get the picture. That which you proffered above, is still (someone's, although I strongly doubt it originated with you.) opinion, and in fact, is still opinion only.

Ed

 

Good question. It couldn't have been the American King James Version because all the words like Saviour, colour and honour are Americanized and spelled incorrectly. And it couldn't have been the 1611 KJV because it leaves out a part of 1 John 5:12. It couldn't have been the Oxford KJV because it changes some of the words. And it couldn't have been the NKJV because much of that translation is based on errant manuscripts. I've got it - it must be the Pure Cambridge KJV!

Wonder where Pete is when we need him???

 

Amen, gb93433! Preach it!

If the KJVO position IS theology, it certainly isn't biblical theology! Maybe we could get away with calling it "non-biblical pseudo-theology" but "false teaching" fits nicely and it's also a lot easier to say.

:smilewinkgrin:

 

Ed, I don't think Moses used one of the KJVs since the NT wasn't around in his lifetime. Now Paul, on the other hand, I'm sure he also used the Pure Cambridge KJV, the same one Jesus used. After all, Paul or anyone else for that matter, can't possibly be in a right relationship with God unless they use the Pure Cambridge KJV. All others are just poor imitations of the true word.

Ouch! My tongue was in my cheek when I typed the above and I unintentionally bit it. That hurt! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!

 

Boys and Girls let's get back on track

Ok The silliness is over Boys and Girls lets get the topic back on track. (typical)

I think we were dealing with the reason "Why we need an updated Bible". It is because the Language has changed.
The premise and the promise of every new translation is supposed to be #1 an updated version or "making a hard version KJV easier to read, i.e NIV or what ever it be" The proof that was given by Bible Thumper is modern versions have not done this. We call this HOODWINKED. In some cases it is more difficult to read and don't even try to memorize it because the grammatical structure of most versions is pathetic.

The KJV uses one to two syllable words. while new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases ANY body can see this, I think.

Just a few of hundreds examples
Matthew 3:12 the NASB uses Winnowing fork. KJB -fan
Matthew 5 :19 NASB annuls, kjv break.
Matthew 8:32 NASB Begone (sounds old english) KJB -go:laugh:
an updat version of mark 16:15
"Begone into all the world and preach the gospel...
Mark 5:4 NASB Subdue KJB, tame.

The flesh-Kincaid research company ranked the KJV easier to read 23 out of 26 comparisons.

The new translations are getting harder to read. Not easier.

Greek is a dangerous thing. Remember every Bible believer lost his faith in a final authority in a year 1 geek class.

You do not need Greek to know your Bibles. Greek was brought into Bible Schools to charge the Big Bucks.:thumbsup:



DR. Ehud

 

I get tickled that an anti-intellectual such as yourself would use "Dr." in your title.

So by that reasoning, we should all get children's Bibles, as they would be the best translations.

Only those who think Jesus and Paul spoke English. So...everyone who has ever taken greek has lost his faith? Good grief.

Have you missed reality since you made the clean break? Oh, I'm sorry...you're right...the Bible was written originaly in 16th-century English. It was translated into Greek in the early 20th century at a Baptist seminary.

Since Greek is evil incarnate, why would you read the KJV? It's translated from Greek. Sorry to disappoint.

I do want to thank you for being so entertaining, though...your thoughts are pretty humorous.

 

Must have a PhD- Post-hole digger!

 

As a farmer who regularly uses a Post-Hole Digger, I resent the comparison that gives a bad name to a very good tool!

By contrast, the fitting appellation of "Piled Higher and Dee..."

Ed

 

Yes, there are in most editions of the KJV several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” and “mean while.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Does the division of such words actually make the KJV easier to read? By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. Can you see that these shorter archaic words or words used in an archaic sense that are not understood by many present English readers are not easier to understand than their longer modern equivalents? These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading.

 

"The above is post # 89 in this thread, which was made by Ehud. Since Ehud chose to mention 'grammatical structure', and since I also do not want to see anyone 'HOODWINKED,' I decided to mark various grammatical and spelling errors, of one sort or another, by highlighting them in red, in the post. I quickly noticed more than 25 in the above post, including five errors of spelling, which errors I have so 'marked.' (All emphases are my own. - Ed)

Ehud, you apparently wish to be considered as the 'Doctor of Truth' on the Baptist Board, according to some of your previous posts.

However, I suggest that your so-called doctorate would serve to give a 'bad name' to any 'mail-order' doctorate.

BTW, I have half a mind to report your post, simply on the grounds that I find it insulting to the intelligence of the members of the Baptist Board, some of whom, for one reason or another, likely were not even able to complete so much as the 6th grade."

Signed, Language Cop

Disclaimer: Language Cop is the alter ego of EdSutton, B.A. - hcl (FBC); N.D. (SBP).