Is this use of "bravery" in KJV unusual?

One prob, God is never deceived nor does He ever leave all men unsure of life. Um, I meant two probs, and counting.

The 1611 doesn't say they deceived God nor does it equate God with the antics of the wicked who lay in wait and take men unawares. So go figure.

Seems the KJB has at least one over the NASV and the NKJV too. And who cares any more about all the probs with the NIV!:laugh:

 

I had no problems whatsoever.
I looked up Isaiah 3:18 in the KJV1769 Edition
with the Strong's Numbers and it had
the definition of all the Hebrew Terms from
which the translations were made.
Thus, my final Authority, the STRONGS
CONCORDANCE of the Bible, gave me all
the right answers

Isa 3:18 In that1931 day3117 the Lord136 will take
away5493 (853) the bravery8597 of their tinkling ornaments5914
about their feet, and their cauls,7636
and their round tires7720 like the moon,

Example from Strongs & Isaiah 3:18 -


H7720
שׂהרן
śahărôn
sah-har-one'
From the same as H5469; a round pendant for the neck:
- ornament, round tire like the moon.



see, the Hebrew 'saharon' means 'round tire like the moon'
(which I already knew cause it was right there
in my on-line computer based copy of the
KJV1769 Edition Bible.
Just like G.A. Riplinger said, the word is defined
in the KJV1769 - 'round tires like the moon'.

21st century example:
My Pontiac G6 has 'round tires like the moon'.
They are filled with Helium cause it is less likely
(than wet air) to freeze up and mess the tire up.

 

We're making progress here, Brother Ed is using the Concordance and his wit combined to prove the KJB to remain inerrant.

Now explain how "tires" came to mean something it had never meant until the invention of the rubber tire? Could it possibly be something to do with the invention of the rim? And then where do we get the term "rim"? Then tell us how the incorporation of the roundness of the neck is involved? Then expalin the relation of the moon towards the woman? Then expalin how Isaiah 3 isn't dealing with women in Israel? Then explain there is somehow no connection to these?

Seems one wants to under educate rather than be comprehensive in education.:tear:

 

Not Cheap imitations, but translations of God's word.

True... God has preserved many copies of the original languages, and what He wrote is infallible.[/quote]

Nope... no matter what others say :thumbs:

Well, Hello there, Have I got a deal for you! Do you want to live longer? Do you want to live happier? Do you need more fulfilment out of life? Then wait no longer... you don't need Joel Osteen, all you need to do, is send me $19.95 and I will give you the secrets of happiness and longetivity! But you have to act now... Tomorrow you may die!

But that's not all! If you are part of the first 100 to buy my secrets, I will throw in a new pair of flip flops!

So do I, and I praise God for the MVs that put God's word into receptor languages that the common people can understand.

 

Here is the same scripture in
another infallable, inerrant, inspired, and
preserved by the Divine Providence of
God Bible BUT written in 21st century
(2001-2100) English /so folks don't get
confused between lady's fine wear and
Pontiacs./

Isaiah 3:18 (TNIV = Today's New International Version, 2006)

In that day the Lord will snatch away
their finery: the bangles and headbands
and crescent necklaces,

 

I didn't; the dictionaries list "tires" (in the KJV sense) as archaic.

 

Expecting the best of both worlds there.

"Translations" in estimation are not inspired. To limit God to only the originals is blatant heresy and would demand that the only way to salvation is by and thru the originals.

Translations would then be man's words and not God's words. Big ERROR!

And I have a copy too in the English, uess which ones it isn't? OK, keep guessing.

Then you're praising Him for all the corruptions, omissions, and mistranslations as well.

The problem is common people don't understand the point of view from the Divine perspective in what we all refer to as "MV's", they only understand men's views of what they think God said and then they don't know what God meant.:tear:

 

Thank you for providing proof the TNIV is in error. All women in Israel aren't "fine" by any exageration, but the word is clear that the Lord would take away their bravery of the tinkling ornaments.

The TNIV reads as if God would make them all ugly.:laugh:

Glad I have Go'ds word and not a cheap imitation.

 

Then you allow men to have authority over the word of God to change it at their own will.

The meaning of the passage is found in the then usage and by those terms presented.

All other renderings in MV's either cloud the meaning or alter it all together. (as my reply to Brother Ed shows)

 

The same authority the KJV translators assumed.

 

I am shocked that you would talk about the 1611 translation in this manner. It is an excellent translation and I am certain that these men prayed and depended on the Holy Spirit for His help.

 

I think what people have been trying to point out is, what is the essential difference between this and translating the original languages into English? Since Greek doesn't mean anything to me, I've "allowed men to have the authority over the word of God" to change it into something that makes sense to me.

 

TeeHee -- one of the ads on this Topic is from the church of

[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]Steven L. Anderson (former member of BB)

-
[/FONT]

 

This is dealing as much with gentile men like yourself.
Under the divine guidance of God, Isaiah
describes a shoe. If the shoe fits -- wear it.

Would Jesus wear a Rolex,
on His Television show?

-no, of course not

 

Shocked? Or have you superimposed something, again?

I know the 1611 is the word of God to all English speaking peoples. You say it is only a translation.

You then ultimately believe the error that only the original autographs are the word of God. The catholics tried the same thing with the Latin by hiding the true meaning from the common man. You seem to suggest the same denial to the common man by the attempt to hide the true meaning of God's word to only a handful of Greek scholars, making Greek the same as Latin in this case.

The English of the 1611 AV is perfectly definable. The Greek is persistently debated and argued over as we speak.

You decide? Is God enough to preserve His word without error, or as so many like to do, argue it's meaning and put God at some "disadvantage"?

"Bravery" in 1611 has it's relativity to the passage. As offered, other versions confuse the true meaning to the context.

I have no problem with the 1611. Seems you do, else you wouldn't argue against it so often.

 

Brother, may I suggest you rely on the Holy Spirit instead of men who think they know the Greek?

The arguements are about the Greek consistent with the antics of God-denying men; denying that God has preserved His word in English by suggesting different meanings to the Greek

 

Earth to Commander Ed, come in!

 

Of course He is. He is not bound to early 17th century English alone as some think.

He did it in English before 1611, He did it in 1611, and He has done it since.

Praise God for His faithfulness.

The word bravery does not mean in 2007 what it meant in 1611, in any sense of the word. Praise God for faithful translations in the language we speak today!n I have to wonder if Sal praises his wife for her beauty or her bravery when she is dressed up for church.

 

Are you saying the 1611 KJV is perfect, with no mistakes?

 

Bound to Greek though as you demand.

We disagree. So does God. Fulfillment of prophecy disagrees with you, just as His word disagrees with you.

Amen!

Keep wondering, but if I did, I would be sure to tell her to look it up to know what I meant instead of trying to corrupt her in the process.

Bravery still has the 1611 meaning, it's just men and their witty inventions attempt to make the meaning archaic.