English

Contemporary usage.

No if you're talking classical literature. Yes if you're talking about God's Word.

Everybody reads and understands things differently.

Ideally, yes.

We get that by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Hence, a variety of Bible versions.

Again, what is accepted by our contemporaries.

Not sure what you mean by this. I am pretty sure you meant to say 'veracity' of the Scriptures. A little clarity is in order before I can answer this.

 

I am not sure I am qualified to give answers on this, but I'll express my opinion.

NO. The meaning of words change over time. If I said you were gay in 1940 it would not mean the same as saying you wre gay in 2009. BY the way, I am not saying your gay.

Again no. I may have a complete misunderstanding of a word. That does not change it's meaning.

.. duh

Wouldn't we use the standard from the time of the writing? This is what makes it a difficult task. None of us were alive at the time and familiar with the language. We use Dictionaries, commentaries, and other man made tools to interpet. All of these are flawed. The scripture say we must be a workman and rightly dive the word of truth. If we put in that effort the Holy Spirit will reveal what we need. The bible says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled.

We still ahve to go back to the original source.

I am not smart enough to understand this question. Can you clarify?

I am curious to see where you are going with this, but I think I might know.

 

Mexdeaf already pointed this out.Salamander needs to use proper English.His clarity is lacking.

Even by correcting the spelling of two of his words ['affect' and 'veracity']doesn't remove Sal's ambiguity.

I can try and reconstruct the beginning of Sal's sentence: Does the rendering of words into a given receptor language affect the accuracy of the Scriptures by ...

 

If this is the question...

Then yes. The rendering of any writting into a receptor language will affect the accuracy of that translation. It would be difficult to present an argument to the contrary.

And the point is?

 

The purpose of language is to communicate a message.

Do the words used communicate the message to the recipient?

Who cares what the "root" of a word is?

If the message isn’t conveyed to the recipient, any words that were used in the process were worthless.

As usual, you’re not communicating your message to me clearly.
What do you mean?

Rob

 

I agree.Even the KJVs are subject to the same scrutiny.The rendering of the original languages into the English of the early 17th century affected the accuracy of transmission.

 

It's funny.We are trying to 'translate' Sal-speak into understandable English.

 

Salamander, Amen! Preach it!

 

Birds of onlyism flock together.

 

If the English of 1611 is perfect and clear, why don't those who hold to that position speak and write in in today?

 

Because KJVO advocates can't speak in the English of 1611.It's neither perfect nor clear to them. [this attack on a group of posters in the versions forum is unacceptable]

 

The standard is that the original meaning of the written words should be kept, no matter how often the words of the receptor language need to be changed or updated in order to preserve the original meaning. It's the meaning that's important - not the words printed on the page.

 

That's exactly why there are various translations of God's word - so that the meaning is kept accurate, even though the words used to present the meaning must sometimes change.

That's an extremely poor attempt to present a thought, Salamander. Please explain your meaning.

Right, Sal. There are no inaccuracies in the KJVs - if you ignore the inaccuracies. :laugh:

Is God forbid an accurate translation of the Hebrew chaliylah or the Greek ginomai?

Could one man be two different ages at the same point in time?

At one time "Ester" or "Easter" was the best English word to use in translating the Greek pascha, but that was no longer true in 1611. The appearance of "Easter" in Acts 12:4 in the KJVs is definitely inaccurate, as is witnessed by the fact KJV translators used the correct "Passover" in all other appearances of the Greek pascha.

And, as everyone should know, the love of money isn't the sole root of all evil.

Say what? That's about as clear as mud...or the foot of snow we have outside today. Unless, of course, you meant this to ba a snow job, Sal. If that's the case, then carry on because you're doing a great job! :laugh:

Salamander, the only denigration of God's word I've seen comes from KJVOs who denigrate every translation that isn't one of the KJVs. Stating the truth that the KJVs have errors and inaccuracies isn't denigration, Salamander - it's fact.

 

Apparently it's alright to change the language spoken on the street as long as the printed words of the KJVs aren't changed.

 

Personal Foul ! Unnecessary personal attack. 15 yrd penalty.

Stating that KJO can barely speak english is very wrong and it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

Sal

I use a KJV exclusively. I preach from it. I teach from it. I understand it. I understand your stance and have sat in churches where preachers critisized MV and called them "pervervions".

I agree that their are some perversions out there and I would assume that most everyone would agree also. However, I do not understand the stance that there can be no modern version other than KJ. The original text was written in a language from a time that no longer exist and that we can no understand. That is why we need the KJV, agreed? What do we do when a time comes that the language from the KJV is no longer understood? I am not saying we are there but we are moving in that dirrection, due to the ever evolving English language. I remember in one of my history courses in college we listened to a 5 minute recording of Beowulf. The professor asked if anyone could identify the language. No one could. The professor then told everyone that it was English.

 

There's nothing wrong with being KJVP, thegospelgeek. What IS ridiculous is the KJVO position we see promoted by extremists. Surely God didn't promise to preserve His word and then fail to follow up on that promise until 1611 or whenever the perfect KJV was published. The extreme KJVO position is absolutely absurd.

 

I don't view it as ridiculuos as much as misunderstanding history and culture. Most of the people in the area where I live are KJO. I think many believe Jesus spoke in 17th century English. It doesn't help for me to call them ridiculuos or mock them. It also doesn't help if they do the same to me.

It IS difficult to get them to open their minds to the position of others. quite often they are right and anyone else is wrong. But I find that true in most everyone on any doctrinal position.

I can tell from his post that Sal is neither ignorant of history nor unlearned. I hope to learn on this thread his reasons for beleiving that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that is correct. OR do I misunderstand your position Sal?