Does archaic language hurt our understanding of this verse?

It takes a big man to admit he has made a mistake! :thumbs:

Love 'ya, Bro Tony

 

Not exactly. Many "contemporary" wordings are vague to the understanding. "Age-old" meanings are usually picked up on right away and are only strange to the reader at the first.

A good dictionary is always advised when reading the Bible in any version, especially in any of the MSS available.:smilewinkgrin:

And reason would go on to say that the translator knew what the verse means, thus the use of a colon to indicate the meaning and without error.

I admit my "error" was to not notice the colon.

Irrelevent. The punctuation is given in the more modern language so the verse can be understood exactly and without question":" I now understand by observing the colon my mistake and have to say the decree is the "thing" gone out from Nebuchednezzar, why even others have already shown the original languages to show that very same thing.

It probably is the ones who think it is the dream that is forgotten that have used a version without punctuation and without the original language being considered.:godisgood:

It also would be to the advantage of anyone having this concern to check the flow and contextual meaning in the original concerning the usage of the verbs in the same original.

I'll just stick with the KJB on this one, until then.............:jesus:

 

The subject is archaic language...

...and gb93433's emphasis was on the word conversation (twice).

Salamander does not demonstrate a deep appreciation of the archaic meaning of 'conversation' with his reply.

The KJV properly used the English word 'conversation' in translation of the Greek word 'anastrophe' which means "manner of life, conduct, behavior, deportment" (Strong's #391), because in 1611 England the word "conversation" carried the appropriate significance: an individual's manner of behavior, or personal conduct.

However, in 2006 the English word 'conversation' means "the spoken exchange of thoughts, opinions, and feelings; talk" (American Heritage Dictionary). This is a very different meaning than the word had 400 years ago. It is most unlikely that a modern reader would even suspect that there was potentially a different meaning, or ever deduce that archaic meaning from out of the context. Salamander would have us believe that this knowledge might be instantly imparted at conversion.

'Conversation' didn't mean speaking or talking then, and it doesn't mean conduct or behavior now. Many other versions properly convey the contemporary meaning: the ESV and NKJV render it as "conduct"; the NLT as "godly lives"; the RSV, NASB, and NIV all use "behavior". Noah Webster chose "deportment" in his version. By 1833 he already thought the KJV needed revision because of obsolete words and constructions (and he would know, he sorta wrote the book on words!). Since then, another 200 years has affected our English language.

It is not the fault of the KJV, but it does fail in many verses to express the message of the Author to nearly all readers of our age. The AV has served honorably.

It is abundantly clear that this verse is about pure and holy living, a good public reputation, and high moral and ethical conduct in personal behavior. Concern over one's attire or external portrayal is a shallow and pathetic application of this verse. Outward appearance is the manifestation of inward condition... preach to the inward condition. Eternal souls are at stake.

I have experienced the archaic language difficulty more than once myself. When I was young lad hearing the 23rd Psalm read aloud, I was confused by "the Shepherd I shall not want" (why wouldn't I want Him?). It's humorous now, but was frightening then.

 

:BangHead: What a laugh!

Any person is known by their conversation, at length.

You're floating downstream on this one, the OP was about the verse, not archaic language.

 

It is unclear which definition Salamander is using for "conversation" here (the 1611 meaning or the 2006 meaning?).

Either way, I believe the record will show that Salamander is known by his "conversation" on this board: as being arrogant and showing contempt for others (the proof can be read starting at Post #2 of this thread).

 

the word literally means "thing," which can refer to the king's word or his dream, but the ambiguity doesn't exist in the context. YLT n KJB have "thing" but that thing isn't the king's dream at all. as a simple comparison of God's Word in various translation suggests, it's to do w the king's mind being made up, his decision having been issued:

some KJBOs claim that there's a built-in dictionary in the KJB, but what a lie it is. context helps, but it's not unique to the KJB n it isn't a "dictionary" by any definition either.

for a better evidenced study of the KJB's readability (rather than KJBOs' fave wrested Flesch-Kincaid scores or unreviewed anecdotes), check out Gail Linam's 1993 doctoral dissertation (referenced at http://amarillo.fortunecity.com/revdkjb.htm), which shows the results when kids in Texas were exposed to various versions. those given the KJB not only failed to function terribly (e.g. at retelling the stories) but some were close to tears.

but of course such info wld only appeal to those with an open mind. :BangHead:

 

My, aren't we getting off on a nasty little note, friend?:1_grouphug:

"Conversation" has the same meaning today as it did in 1611.:thumbsup:

Your idiological idea that it doesn't, doesn't hold water.:sleep:

Conversation is even to communication, it is synonomous with communication. People communicate by many different means: voice,eye contact, clothing, hairdoo, body language, skin to skin contact, etc., etc.

If you cannot refrain from being filled with anxiety in any conversation in the BV&T forum, then please EXIT.:tongue3:

 

I've heard about the "conversation" one before, but never heard about the "this thing is gone from me".

So, I would agree, a few words and phrases from a 400 year old style of English can and does hurt our understanding of those verses.

As far as the 1611 edition, it's really not impossible to read. Even with the odd spelling and use of long s (and other differences), it's still readable. The only thing that slows me down is the blackletter.

 

Ok, so you came up with the same interpretation that I did by observing the colon to distinguish the "thing" being Nebuchednezzar's decree.:applause:

I would have to agree that any passage in the Bible is clearly defined by the Harmony of the Scripture; thus a "dictionary" would suffice by, uh, definition.

OK, so you bring the Word of God down to be placed in the hands of men to give the meaning and leave the Holy Ghost out, what else is new?

May I suggest getting familiar with the Word of God verses intellectualism when it comes to conveying the message of the Bible?

If all you're trying to do is get stories across and then expect a book report then be my guest, but I'd rather have the Lord. Though the historical aspect of the Scripture is important, it is not nearly as important as allowing the Lord to get the POINT across; thus the colon is emphatic that the "thing" can ONLY mean the decree!:thumbsup:

 

Sorry, but I cannot agree. Maybe it's the English "major" in me, but what you're assessing is in a way of congratulating less education in the attempt to "educate".

I guess I'm just "Old School" and an "Old Paths" Christian.:sleeping_2:

 

therefore, u cldn't recognise a dictionary if one came by n waved at u :wavey:

i wldn't consider KJBO Gnosticism "getting familiar w the Word of God."

n i'd suggest leaving the Lord outta ur Gnosticism.

 

Off topic again, we were supposed to be discussing one supposed archaic usage.

Thread closed