King James Problem Words

Insulting as usual. Ever think of trying a new method?

 

If words deemed are "archaic", then why do we find them in cuurrent use here in the BB?:laugh:

 

Modern and perverted understandings go against context when they are used subjectively and it is found anyone who does so is very immature.

 

Then m-w.com is wrong. Conversation is very often referred to one's actions which speak louder than mere words. Of course that axiom is idiomatic to some who refuse certain cliche's.

 

Sorry David, I don't see the problem here. Does this not men what it seems "Your carriages are heavy laden?" We don't really know if they are talking about the load carried or the wagons which are loaded, do we?

I note that the NKJV chose to use the idea of the carriages (wagons?) being loaded down.

Good question either way.

 

You can spend your life trying to change the world back to where it was but doubt that you will have much success? That is much lie the Amish do.

You are right but we are also living in a changing culture.

The only problem is that the NT was translated into a language about 1600 years later. Imagine forcing peope to use the same language of when the NT was written? Even worse imagine writing the NT in the caiptal letters with no punction and spaces between words.

Ever heard anyone refer to the catholic epistles? I can just imagine protestant liking that.

 

All this poses an interesting thought...

When all is said and done, will the righteous dead hear God speaking in modern language? or as He did in days of Abraham or before?

Just a thought...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSutton


Ed

It is not "insult", by definition, to find something humorous in a situation.

Ed

 

For the KJV’s use of “conversation” at Philippians 3:20, Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary defined it as “citizenship” (p. 21). At this same verse, Waite’s Defined KJB indicated that the Greek word means “citizenship” (p. 1556). The King James Easy-Reading Bible gave “citizenship” as its definition for conversation at Philippians 3:20 (p. 333).

Is that definition for "conversation" in regular English dictionaries?

 

Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) observed: "No inconvenience will follow if interpretation or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected" (Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, p. 232). Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "One who holds to the KJV without updating it contributes to its neglect and progressive disuse" (The Future of the Bible, p. 148). As Noah Webster noted in the introduction to his 1828 Dictionary, "No art nor effort can completely arrest alternations in a living language."


One KJV-only advocate claimed that updating is all right if it is done as follows: "'This word means' is acceptable; but 'A better rendering would be' is not" (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 315). If a pastor must explain what the archaic word means, he is implying that there may be another word which is more accurate in today's English than the word in the KJV.

Is the updating of the archaic words in the KJV right only when it is verbal and wrong if it is written?

 

Some are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good. So perhaps their conversation is in heaven.

 

Some are so earthly minded that they fail to understand the spiritual/heavenly things. The Bible is a spiritual book...so why not look up Bible words in a Bible dictionary? Three Bible dictionaries were used to find the biblical definition of the word "conversation"...and all the definitions were the same.

 

This kind of thought makes me reconsider my view, why not just go back and use an even older English version? Why not go back to Wycliff and just use a Middle English dictionary?

It is ridiculous to thinks that KJV words are some how "Bible" words and NKJV words are not "Bible" words or that 17th century English is more spiritual than 21st century words.

 

I didn't mention any version. The thread is about the King James Problem Words...not any other version. Do you not believe that all the words in the KJV are "Bible" words? Why are we comparing those King James words with the modern definitions?

 

Because of this spurious charge:

The word "conversation" is not more spiritual/heavenly that the word "conduct." They are both "Bible words."

This subtle charge that those who don't use the word "conversation" instead of "conduct" are somehow less spiritual is ludicrous.

This has been a good thread. It has caused me to re-evaluate some thoughts. Perhaps that archaic English is a key and sound reason for a modern English translation of the Byzantine text body. (Something like the NKJV perhaps ? )

 

Does it matter? I imagine we will hear God in our language. Surely there is no implication here that everyone is going to hear God in 17th century English.

 

How did you come to the conclusion that "conversation" is a Bible word? It is a 1611 word that had the best English equivalent meaning of the Greek word used in every day life. The NT was written in common ordinary Greek of the day not English. History reveals that English did not even exist when the Bible was finished.

Why would I care to be like some preachers who preach a sermon twice as long because they spend so much time giving the definition of a word used in the KJV that is already in the NASB and understood. Wouldn't it be better to explain the passage and give aplication rather than wasting 1/2 of the people's time telling them about what he found in a dictionary. It reminds me of the time a young man told me about the preacher he had heard and how when the preacher explained each word form the kJV that it was already there in his NASB.

 

Something tells me it was more than "just a thought" SFIC .

God will communicate in an understandable way . That would preclude ancient forms .

 

I am sorry if you thought that what I said was a spurious charge---was just reversing the statement of gb----"Some are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good"...just added different words at the end. If you believe that my statement was a spurious charge, gb's would also be the same.

I never said it was, nor did I imply that it was. Also, I never said anyone was more "spiritual" because they use a certain word when others don't. Please don't read into my post what isn't there.

All I wanted to know is why the "Bible" word (of the KJV...since this is the version of this thread) meanings (which were obviously written in the 17th century) are compared to the modern definitions of those words...nothing more. This is my last post in this thread.

 

I think some KJVO and KJVP preachers end up explaining their KJV texts in the language of the NLTse more often than not .