Is updating archaic words wrong?

BTW, the 1 Corinthians passage has nothing to do with being able to understand a language or form of a language that is not your own. It has to do with the fact that someone who is not spiritual cannot understand the meaning of scripture even if they can read the words intelligently... this is true of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, NA27, TR, UBS4, Geneva, etc.

 

Jim, the arguments we are making aren't "modernist". We disagree with your assertion that the Holy Spirit is needed to guide our understanding... we disagree with the idea that this has anything to do with the mechanics of not understanding the grammar and diction of the KJV.

 

I guess we are going to have to disagree...I am not willing to take the Holy Spirit out of any part of the understanding of the scriptures. Whether it is mechanics or grammer or diction or comprehension or illumination. The way I know the "things of God" is by words written in a Book that the Holy Spirit has tuaght me...no other way!

I also find it very disturbing that men claim they cannot understand the language of the AV. With the Holy Spirit's help it isn't that difficult...this has always seemed to be a poor excuse for not STUDYING to me.

Thanks for the exchange,

Max

 

Logos,
Once again, as I have said in other post and previous topics...I can't begin to explain all of the work of other men...I am not responsible for their statements or positions. I have also said before that I don't agree with many of the arguments used by my KJVO brethren...I ma accountable only for my own position.

Max

 

I may point out to you brother Logos, that it isn't KJVo folks alone who stumble at certain passages. Nor is it KJVo folks exclusively who have proposed the Gap theory. (That IS the issue you have brought up. And it IS clear that you reject the Gap theory based on your comments here. Otherwise, why would you ASSUME difficulty?)

Just because you disagree with a particular interpretation of any given passage does not equate that the KJVo author's is wrong! Nor does it mean that the man's alledged error is because of his stand concerning the KJV.

I think that is called a straw man? (Or some other such fallacy of argument.)

To address your point specifically;
You have made a grave error in equating a particular interpretation of a given passage with a given man's understanding of the language used in that passage. Or are you next going to tell us that the KJVo author in question is NOT led by the same Holy Spirit you think you are when interpreting Genesis?

Again, I remind you that there are other men who are not KJVo who have come to the same conclusions on any given number of interpretations of any number of given passages. This is not solely a KJVo problem. why are you making it appear as if it is?

And while I am at it...Please dear brother, perhaps you can explain how MV readers come to erroneous interpretations? That is IF it is simply an "easier to read and understand" issue at all.

And my dear brother Scott;
I absolutely reject the notion that Scripture can be understood by anyone apart from the Holy Spirit. Whether that Scripture be in English, French, Spanish or Philpino or any of the other 2000 languages on this earth!!!
Take your "grammar and diction" and toss it. Try trusting God.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

It's called the blind-eye tactic.

Rather than admit the 1762/1769/1873 KJV needs some simple word updates they ignore the examples and/or spin while never answeing the questions. They put forth a show of words performing alluring tricks that would make the best circus clown glow with envy.

 

Originally posted by Logos1560:

 

It seems you have answered your own question Logos. If you added up all of the claims of these men you would still only have a "few" in comparison to the 8000 word vocabulary of the AV...nice try again though!

Max

 

Max, didja ever consider that the AV, when first made, was in the most modern English of the time? well, that time is over, and it's now time for reading God's word in TODAY'S English. To be stuck with only one 400-yr-old version is not too smart, as GOD isn't so stuck. Nor did he retire in 1611.

KJVO is an unfounded myth.

 

robycop3,

Funny part is...that's your response. You guys make the claims about the outdated language (which has been proven to be a very weak argument)and then when confronted with the facts you have nothing to say. The subject will get changed and then you guys will accuse us of being afraid to respond and running away. Same old stuff.

BTW, you are right that God did not retire in 1611...the Holy Spirit is still very actively involved in teaching believers the truth form their precious old AV.

Max

 

Max, On several occasions I have mentioned words that people think they know but are used differently in the KJV.

One is communicate. Read with the modern definition, it frequently makes "sense"... but that definition would lead to a misunderstanding of what was said. It almost always means "share" in the KJV.

Another word is conversation. It doesn't mean a verbal interaction as used in the KJV.

Others have posted entire lists of words whose meanings have changed and that could lead to a misunderstanding. Beyond that, the sentence structures are sometimes difficult and cumbersome... not out of necessity for accuracy of translation but simply because of the way sentences were structured in the past.

I use and revere the KJV. You are partly right. It isn't riddled with these problems throughout thus rendering it useless. However to the degree these problems do exist, they oppose the principle established by God in the originals of using the common language to communicate His Word.

MV's are valid and useful in that they eliminate many of these problems.

 

Here's a question I'd like to pose:

I've heard it been said that, while the KJV translators were great scholars of NT Greek, when it came to the words "baptism" or "baptize," they actually coined these words by transliterating the Greek word "baptizo" instead of translating it as "immersion" or "to immerse" (which is what the Greek "baptizo" means).

Is there any validity to that charge?

Please supply evidence to support your position on this.

 

There is a lot of confusion
about 'confusion".

1Co 14:33 (KJV1611):
For God is not the authour of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints.

G181
ἀκαταστασία
akatastasia
ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah
From G182; instability, that is, disorder: - commotion, confusion, tumult.

A better translation even in 1611 and 1769
would have been 'disorder'.

Confusion is now largely a mental state,
disorder is an between-persons condition
of which Paul speaks in this scripture.
Yet this misunderstanding of the word
"confusion" is the source of much confusion
in this modern world because of it's use
in 1611 and 1769 and it's misunderstanding
in 2005.