"Pure" vs. "Flawless" - Which is Better? You Decide

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by AVBunyan, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some folks do not seem real concerned about the “updated” words on the MVs. Below are a couple of changes that are interesting to me.

    1. Pure vs. flawless
    In Psalms 12:6 the AV1611 says: The words of the LORD are pure words:
    The MVs (at least most or maybe even all since they all appear to be from the same set of manuscripts) reads: Psa 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless,

    The difference – the AV uses “pure” while the MVs use “flawless”. The difference you ask?
    Let’s look at and “old fashioned” Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary. I’m partial to my own language myself.

    Pure :
    1. Separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter; clear; free from mixture; as pure water; pure clay; pure sand; pure air; pure silver of gold. Pure wine is very scare.
    2. Free from moral defilement; without spot; not sullied or tarnished; incorrupt; undebased by moral turpitude; holy

    Flawless:
    Without cracks; without defect

    Pure carries with it holiness and morality. Flawless doesn’t.
    A septic tank can be without cracks or defects thus being flawless but is a septic tank associated with holiness or morality?

    The AV611 uses pure for God is pure. And the last time I did a study on the word and the Word – they were inseparable. Which word would you like to have describing God’s words? Also, look at Psa. 12:7 in the NIV – it doesn’t even reference God’s words but “us”! The reference to the words has been removed!

    Another example on pure – I just grabbed this one without searching much!
    Av1611 - Psa 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

    NIV - Psa 19:8 The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes.

    Pure vs. “radiant” – which one would you prefer? Radiant? Satan is an angel of light!
    Just run the references and you will see the MVs do not think God’s words, statutes, and commandments are pure.

    On this pure issue – in Dan. 7:9 Christ’s hair is not even pure anymore it is just white!
    I’m kinda’ of partial to the word pure vs. anything else mentioned here as an alternative.

    Boy, Isn’t this fun? :D

    2. “Of” vs. In”
    I’ve already devoted a post on this but we’ll try again within the context of this thread.

    a. The AV1611 says:
    Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ,

    b. The NIV (and most others including the NKJV) –
    Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.

    In the AV the justifying faith is Christ’s.
    In the NIV the justifying faith is man’s.

    Which faith do you feel safer trusting in, Christ’s or yours? Can your faith justify? Your faith in Christ cannot justify – only Christ’s faith can.

    You say you don’t see the difference? I know, “in the Greek it says…” - and yes, I’ve already heard about the Greek there.

    Now I’ve looked at just 2 words – “pure” and “of”. Would you like to go further?

    Ya’ know what? Do you know what would be an interesting study – let’s see how the MVs describe the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. I’m not talking about his deity for this has been covered though some folks still can’t see it (I Cor. 2:14). You believe “that in all things he might have the preeminence” don’t you – Col. 1:18? Wouldn’t that be an interesting study to see how the AV and the MVs compare in describing the charter of the Saviour?

    Preeminence
    The quality or state of being pre["e]minent; superiority in prominence or in excellence; distinction above others in quality, rank, etc.; rarely, in a bad sense, superiority or notoriety in evil; as, pre["e]minence in honor.

    Supremacy
    The state of being supreme, or in the highest station of power; highest or supreme authority or power; as, the supremacy of a king or a parliament.

    Preeiminence comes from eminent:
    1. High; lofty; as an eminent place. Ezek.16.
    2. Exalted in rank; high in office; dignified; distinguished. Princes hold eminent stations in society, as do ministers, judges and legislators.
    3. High in public estimation; conspicuous; distinguished above others

    The difference you ask?
    Supremacy speaks of just being the highest in power – any earthly king can have the supremacy
    Hitler had the supremacy in Germany. Caligua had the supremacy in Rome.

    Preeminence carries with it not only being above all others but also carries with it excellence and dignity.

    Ok, which word betters describes the Saviour?

    I think I’ll go further with this study and just see how the MVs describe the Saviour in other passages. Now, wasn’t that fun!

    God bless :D [​IMG]
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try a word study on some Greek words
    "logos" - the living Word of God
    "rhema" - the written Word of God

    (STRONGEST STRONG'S is on sale for about $10
    at Mardels, you won't even have to learn
    the Greek alphabet)

    [​IMG]
     
  3. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    "Pure carries with it holiness and morality. Flawless doesn’t."

    And the phrase "pure nonsense" carries a connotation of holiness and morality?

    "Let’s look at and “old fashioned” Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary. I’m partial to my own language myself."

    Let's not; let's use a contemporary dictionary and realize that being "partial to my own language" is not necessarily a valid translational judgment.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The "pure vs flawless" thing is merely a matter of semantics, the English of 400 years ago compared to that of today.

    Is a flawless diamond not pure? If it weren't pure, it'd have a flaw, wouldn't it? BUT...Can a PURE diamond have a FLAW? Absolutely. So, the semantics game can work both ways.

    "In vs of"...JESUS KNOWS ALL...there's nothing for Him to have faith in. He can do ANYTHING, so what HE has is SURE KNOWLEDGE. Jesus is FAITHFUL in adherence to His word and promises; He ALWAYS does what He's SAID He'd do...while WE have FAITH that He will do as He's said. He KNOWS He'll do it while WE have FAITH He will.

    Now...The KJVO myth is both impure and filled with flaws. and it's the product OF a known cult official made IN a glut OF misinformation. Its advocates could do much to elevate it from "myth" status by providing some SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION for it.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    So, now we need an 1828 fallible dictionary written by fallible men to define the words used in the infallible Word of God?

    HankD
     
  6. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let’s look at and “old fashioned” Webster’s 1828 English Dictionary.

    What is it with KJV-onlyists and Webster's original dictionary, anyway? Ten years from now we're going to be hearing that it is inerrant.

    Besides, when dealing with a 17th-century British English Bible, why would i appeal to a 19th-century American English dictionary, particularly one whose purpose was to Americanize the English language?
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    "What is it with KJV-onlyists and Webster's original dictionary, anyway?"

    I've see this several times. Any idea where the Webster's 1828 Preferred position comes from?
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    1828 Webster English Dictionary Only

    1828WEDO All others are New Age corruptions.

    HankD
     
  9. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    It's true:

    "Webster's 1828 Dictionary is needed to Restore a American Christian Education in the Home, Church, and School."

    "Today the field of lexicography has been demoralized by those who would make 'contemporary usage' and 'slang' a standard of reference for students in our schools."

    http://www.face.net/Webster's_1828.html
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    David Cloud pushes this dictionary in his quest to make all people's KJVO and using the Elizabethan English of the day. What kind of nonsense will they continue to push on people? I thought God said to ALL generations. Well, there have been MANY generations since King Jimmy. If that's the case why haven't the KJVO scholars gotten off their duffs and updated the book to keep the "third person singular" or "second person plural", as they like to use? I'm so tired of their nonsense and their refusal to address the real problems concerning the KJV. I'm tired of their attacks on the MV's as wicked, unGodly (calling God's Word unGodly?), and not sufficient for living the Christian life.

    AVL1984
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    319
    Amazing!

    HankD
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan said "(at least most or maybe even all since they all appear to be from the same set of manuscripts) reads: Psa 12:6 And the words of the LORD are flawless"

    First, I could only find one translation that had "flawless" (the NIV). The other ones I checked had "pure" (NASB, MSG, AMP, NLT, NLV, ESV, NKJV, ASV, YLT, etc.) Your comments of "at least most or maybe even all" are completely wrong, and demonstrate you did not even bother to check.

    Second, "from the same set of manuscripts" is irrelevant. The "manuscripts" issue between modern versions and the older versions is predominantly focused on only the New Testament. There is no textual variation in this word in the Hebrew manuscripts that contain Psalm 12:6. Again, you could have corrected your faulty assumption very quickly if you had bothered to check first.

    The rest of your post deals with what "sounds better" to you, filtered through your personal interpretation. Why not apply the same approach to verses that "sound better" in other versions? Like where the Holy Spirit is called "him" and not "it"? Or where Jesus Christ is "our Lord" instead of being omitted completely? Or where David spoke by "the Holy Spirit", instead of just speaking? We all can pick select verses to "prove" a better reading by what sounds better to us personally. However, that's sidestepping the real issue, and making scripture comparison a purely subjective (and pointless) exercise.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've got a better idea. Let's look at the TR source texts, and see what they say:

    The Hebrew word translated by the KJV as "pure" is tahowr, which means "to be free of foreign elements", or "to be free from defect". The Psalmist is referring to the 'imrah (commands) of Yahweh to be free from blemish. When you say that tahowr should carry with it an implication of holiness and morality, that is contrary to the context and meaning of the word. Hence, you'd be adding to scripture.

    Additionally, when you refer to 'imrah referring to scriptural text, you're again adding to scripture. 'Imrah means "commands", in this case, commands of Yahweh.
     
  14. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    There you go, John, causing problems. Don't you know that the ENGLISH has replaced that old Hebrew stuff. [​IMG]

    Throw out that Greek and Hebrew. We've got the NEW word of God. :rolleyes:
     
  15. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    LOL, Dr. Bob! Thanks. I needed that laugh so bad!

    :D [​IMG] :D [​IMG] :D [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    AVL1984
     
  16. Bro.Bill

    Bro.Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the New word of God do you mean the 1611,or the other updates of the KJV. You certainly can't mean a MV such as ESV,MKJB,NASB.You are way to serious for me.
     
  17. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll do a rare response here.

    Thanks Natters for pointing that out. I really do appreciate your thoroughness in the matter. That was good follow-up on your part. That was an assumption on my part since often times the MVs seem to be similar for in other places they do have a tendency to agree. But since the NIV is very popular I still found it interesting.

    So, I stand corrected - my bad. I've eaten crow before, nothing new to me, and now I'm even learning how to season it - not bad! [​IMG]

    By the way - the modern, contemporary dictionaries have a simliar definition of the word pure - I ponted that out since an earlier response seemed to indicate that I use a more modern dictionary. And by the way I do not to believe Webster to be "inerrant". :rolleyes:

    God bless you and thanks again for correcting me on the "flawless" issue - I sure was "flawed" on that one :D
     
  18. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright, AVBunyan. Good to see someone admit the were wrong. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...