Removing Our Theological Terms?

Depends on what you want the Bible to say.

 

Some of these “sacred words” are transliterations from the Greek and Latin.

To believe that certain words are sacrosanct is akin to believing only one version is set apart by God.

Words are used to communicate ideas.
When a certain word has lost its meaning among a particular group, other words should be used to communicate the same idea to them.

Is the criticism of versions that don't use these terms fair?

Depends upon how accurately they communicated the idea.
But each of those words (in the OP) is so packed with meaning that a novice could easily write a couple of pages about their meaning.
It would be hard to use other words: some have tried, some have failed.

Rob

 

No harm if replaced with more modern equivalent terms.

 

I've just had a look at the various new versions that I have on my computer (I don't use them all!) and looked up the sample words you gave. Here are the results. I've put the count for the AV/KJV first, for comparisson:

Justification: AV 3, NKJV 3, Rotherham 2, YLT 1, ALT 3, Darby 3, ESV 4, God's Word 0

Sanctification: AV 5, NKJV 5, Rotherham 8, YLT 12, ALT 9, Darby 5, ESV 6, God's Word 0

Holiness: AV 43, NKJV 32, Rotherham 27, YLT 18, ALT 6, Darby 42, ESV 36, God's Word 17

Propitiation: AV 3, NKJV 4, Rotherham 18, YLT 3, ALT 4, Darby 3, ESV 4, God's Word 0

Redemption: AV 20, NKJV 23, Rotherham 27, YLT 29, ALT 12, Darby 32, ESV 28, God's Word 0

There doesn't seem to be anything conclusive there, with the exception of the "God's Word" version (I think the full title is "God's Word to the Nations" - it looks like one to avoid)

 

Sounds like the same kind of logic used when the floodgates began to open on all the various interpretations and versions being written and distributed. :tear:

 

Good question. For me personally, it was at a point early on in my Bible studying career that I felt uncomfortable with the fact that we use terms that are not used by the general public. So if you are trying to explain to an unbeliever what you believe and you’re using terms that you have to define on the fly, it makes it hard to keep your audience interested.

Communication is everything when it comes to the message of the Bible. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with keeping the message simple and understandable.

In considering the KJVO debate, it is implied that the sampler folk of the 17th century could understand the language and therefore we today should be smart enough to do what ever it takes to master the meaning of the archaic words. How do we know that this is an accurate statement of fact? I'm sure that this is not an original observation on my part but it seems more likely that the KJB was responsible for standardizing the English language rather than the KJB reflecting the language of the common folk of the time. Some of these theological words are difficult to conceptualize even when put into early 21st century language so what makes us think that they had universal understandability back in the day?

I don't mean to re-state the obvious. My considered opinion is that we have choices when it comes which version(s) of the Bible we can use. I will admit that there are times when the KJB has spoken to me on a particular passage in a way that no other version has. The question is though, was this the work of the Holy Spirit or the words selected by the translators? At the time in history that the Lord walked among men, his audience had a choice between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek LXX. It appears that some of the NT writers used the LXX and I think it is safe to assume that at least one of them could read from the Hebrew Scriptures. There doesn't seem to be any warnings about using alternate translations then, why should there be one now?

So my opinion on the OP question is that it is up to the individual to decide for themselves if having theologically charged or any archaic words in their Bible is important or not. Doctrine is the thing, if your doctrine is wrong, your vocabulary is of no benifit if you ask me.

 

The KJV only leads in one category ("Holiness" with 43). The ESV has the most "Justification" (4), Young's Literal has the most "Sanctification" (12), Rotherham's has the most "Propitiation" (18), and Darby has the most "Redemption" (32).

The KJV wins none of these indivdual matchups--

NKJV has the same count as the KJV of "Justification" and "Sanctification", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Propitiation" and "Redemption". The NKJV only falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Winner: NKJV (+1)

Rotherham exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification", "Propitiation", and "Redemption". The Rotherham falls behind the KJV with "Justification" and "Holiness". Winner: Rotherham (+1)

Young's Literal has the same count as the KJV of "Propitiation", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification" and "Redemption". The Young's Literal falls behind the KJV with "Justification" and "Holiness". Result: Tie

Analytical-Literal has the same count as the KJV of "Justification", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Sanctification" and "Propitiation". The Analytical-Literal falls behind the KJV with "Holiness" and "Redemption". Result: Tie

Darby has the same count as the KJV of "Justification", "Sanctification", and "Propitiation", and exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Redemption". The Darby falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Result: Tie

ESV exceeds the KJV in occurrences of "Justification", "Sanctification", "Propitiation", and "Redemption". The ESV only falls behind the KJV with "Holiness". Winner: ESV (+3)

One could conclude from this data that the above versions are populated with MORE doctrinal vocabulary than the KJV.

 

Is there a new game in town! Dueling versions?? Where do I sign up to play??

Ed

 

Here are a couple things to consider. I think the language of the KJV is still simple/modern enough to communicate to the average person the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The concepts of justification, sanctification, et. are not doctrines that the unbeliever necessary grasps with a full understanding right away.

What I mean by this, is that a brand new Christian may come under the conviction of the Holy Spirit that he/she is a sinner, that his/her good works cannot make him/her right in the sight of God, and be impressed for his/her need for Jesus and the forgiveness of his/her sins through His blood. The sinner is broght to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

Could we see in such a situation (a real one btw) the doctrine of justification? Absolutley. Does the sinner know this? Not by that term, no.

It is the Gospel that is the power of for salvation to everyone that believes. When it comes to a Christian gowing in their faith, the Holy Spirit will illumine the Word of God to the believer.

 

Franklin , what about :

set apart
made holy
justify
justifies
made right
redeem
ransom

etc. , etc. ?

 

Offer some examples

 

Not likely, more like the ones which used the most words were in error.

 

I wouldn't have thought you deemed the word of God so lightly?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by robycop3
No harm if replaced with more modern equivalent terms.

Salamander:Offer some examples

SURE!

'homosexual' for 'sodomite'

'shield' for 'target'

'tumors, boils. lesions' for 'emerods'(the word from which we get 'hemorrhoid')

'cling' for 'cleave'

'prevent' for 'let'(where applicable)

'come' for 'prevent'(where applicable)

'Passover' for 'Easter'

Got lots more if ya need'em!

 

It's my translation day (Eph. 5), but as I work I've been thinking about this, so I thought I'd put my two yen worth in.

I agree with your statement here, TC. To believe that we have to "update" the old terms, I think, ignores our need for technical terms.

It also ignores the tremendous depth of the Bible. The Bible has plenty for the most ignorant heathen and for the most erudite theologian. The heathen can read "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," get saved, then ask later in a Sunday School class hear what justification means from the theologian. I oppose "dumbing down" the Scriptures liked we've dumbed down so much else in America.

Back to work! :type: