Sound Words

Brother Mexdeaf:
You obviously missed this topic:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=39294&page=10

 

Ed,

Tonytony is funny, but I don't think the elevator runs all the way to the top, if you know what I mean.

OTOH, the guys in this forum appear to be educated but they have taken a Bible verse and stretched it so far it they can't get it back into context. Several people have told them what 'sound words' means but they keep trying to make it say something it doesn't....

......on second thought maybe they AREN'T so different from Tonytony.

 

These two sides often argue over the interpretation upon the Word of God. These two sides contradicted each other over a word, “gay” between the old definition in old time and the new definition in current time. To change a new definition for our current time, not the Bible’s time is to add, change, add, change, add…. The point at the Bible is what the passages actually mean because of different interpretation. This could cause many misunderstandings. A few years I posted asking anyone concerning a word. Many posters DIFFERENTLY answered to my question. I was awestruck to see their different interpretation upon one word in the OT. That is a main problem. How? See below.

I researched and found the excellent detail by unnamed author. I read his excellent point upon one word. He wrote that the technique is powerful to control people’s minds by controlling their education, and control their education by controlling their language. That is simple because of 3 different schools: the Antiochan School of Interpretation, the Western School of Interpretation and Alexandrian School of Interpretation. How would these schools interpret any word in the Bible or any passage in the Bible? “Repentance” is what these schools’ interpretations contradicted each other -- What is its definition? The problem: How they understand the interpretation upon the definition of “repentance” in the Holy Scriptures? They easily agree on the math: 3 + 2 = 5, but they disagree each other what a word defines or what a passage means in the Bible.

 

So how about having you to "define" repentance, which word only is translated from "metanoia", and that over 20 times (save for one instance in Hosea, its only occurrence in the OT, BTW, where it is translated from the Hebrew nocham, from nacham, and one mistranslated instance in the NT where it is rendered from the Greek, "ametameletos", as "without repentance" in the KJV) where it comes from the Greek and not from the Latin Vulgate, and the infused Roman Catholic idea of "penance" for me, please.

Is that a fair request?? Especially since you or someone else have fairly recently brought it up, I think at least twice, including once on this thread.

Ed

 

It was Rufus1611 who broached the topic of word sounds (as in Riplinger) , not me. Perhaps you would want to go back and read through that part of the argument.

I keep asking - why do we not hold 17th century English translators to the same standards that we hold 21st century English translators? They could change "sound words" with impunity and are defended for it. If a translator today dares change one word of a sacrosanct translation even in the slightest he violates the "sound words" principle.

 

THE PENNY & the KJV

Rev 6:5-6 (KJV1611 Edition):
And when hee had opened the third seale,
I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld,
and loe, a blacke horse: and hee that sate on him
had a paire of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the foure beastes say,
A measure of wheate for a penie,
and three measures of barley for a penie,
and see thou hurt not the oyle and the wine.

In 1611 the penny (a small British copper coin) was a day's wages.
In 96AD, when the Greek was written, the 'denarion'
was a day's wages (a small Greek copper coin).

So this scripture is predicting a time of famine.
You can barely feed your family (a day's wages for a day's food)
OR you can barely feed your live stock (a day's wages for
the barley for the animals). So you have to choose between
feeding your family now or in the futrue.
Forget anything more than the basics, like oil or wine

(BTW, 'beast' here is a good being so really should read
'living being'.)

In 2007 an American 'penny' is a worthless coin.
To present day readers not aware of history, they
might read this passage as the prediction of
time when there is no care in the world.
This is exactly opposite of the meaning of the passage.

 

Yep.

Proverbs 20:10...

"Differing weights and differing measures,
Both of them are abominable to the LORD."

 

Yes, a double standard is frequently applied. If something is alright for the translators of one version to do the same thing must be considered alright for the translators of all other versions. Likewise, if something is wrong when done by the translators of one version then the same thing is wrong when done by the translators of all other versions. Something can't be both right and wrong because with God there are no gray areas - it's either right or wrong, not both.

 

God isn't limited in this or any arrea except where men limit Him in the working in thier own lives.

I have heard preachers say that sin in the camp prevents God from working/ guilt trip. i have heard the Holy Ghost is sooooooo sensitive that some one disrupting the service will cause Him to run/ hogwash!

Most rabbis would scold you for what you just said.

It's not the particualr articulated way a word sounds, but the way it articulates the message behind the word for its identity in its intent.

Emphasis on a word by the loudness has an effect upon the hearer, but a word truly identifiable for its intent doesn't require volume, so the word is important.

I haven't denied any facts. I have been accused though.

The form of sound words spoken by Paul into the hearing of Timothy are only one side, then we have the words spoken "of" Paul in retrospect by others who have heard Paul and related to Timothy. The foremost we have the actual words spoken which are inspired words that are accreditable to the Lord and His are always the form of soundness.

Disagree? That's your perogative, but the words spoken by God certainly reproved satan.

 

No thanks, I have too little time to waste already.

It all has to do with the impact on the hearer of those words chosen. It's not that the newer word isn't under the same defintion, it is too often found that the newer word can be misleading.

Linguistics always applies to any form of any word, sound words or word sounds, you cannot separate the two. (though many in here have failed miserably in trying to so do.):BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead: and in unison at that!

 

Not to those who understand the Bible wasn't written day before yesterday.

I firmly believe and understand the Lord requires people to study His word for clarity in the understanding. If not so we wouldn't be admonished to study and show ourselves approved of God and before men.

 

Really? You mean because 2000 lbs doesn't equal a metric ton that it is an abomination? Or maybe that 100 milliliters doesn't equal a tablespoon it's an abominable thing?:tonofbricks:

 

Uh, Salamander, I think you're intelligent enough to know that is not what was meant. You cannot use a tablespoon measure that holds one amount for one purpose and another tablespoon measure that hold another amount for a different purpose. Both must be the same, according to God. And likewise we should hold to one set of rules for whatever purpose - whether translating the word of God or something else.

 

You are correct and I apologise - it was Sal himself who brought up the subject of the sounds of words.

 

It wasn't you; it was Salamander in Post #77 (page 8). It was Sal that first asserted that "sound words" referred to the sounds of the words, and he also mentioned Ms. Riplinger there. In part, Sal says--

...I have found that the term "sound words" emphasizes the words heard have incorporated meaning with their linguistic impact. IOW, words have an implicit sound to them to impact the mind and heart of the hearer.

I know Gail Riplinger is a "cuss word" to many here on BB, nevermind where you think she is off-base. But she has a very intellectual approach to the linguistic study of sound comprehension when considering word changes in our English language when compared to other languages.

Mrs. Riplinger is not off on a deserted island by herself on this idea. Many linguists concur with her in this particular study...​

 

From the Webster's 1828 Dictionary--

REPENT'ANCE, n.

1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.

2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance, as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.

3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance, and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.

Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2Cor. 7. Matt. 3.

Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God.​

Now look at Jonah 3:9,10 (KJV)--

Who can tell [if] God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not.​

The 1611 revisors of the Bishop's Bible chose the English words "repent" and "repented". Which definition did they mean by these words? They could not have meant those words in the sense of definition #3 because God could not have "sorrow" for sin, or dishonoring Himself, or violating His own holy law. They could not have meant those words in the sense of definition #2 because God could not "regret" the fear of punishment. Therefore, they must surely have meant those words to be understood in a manner similar to definition #1.

 

I still think it is a pile of crock.

You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther;
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let's call the whole thing off!
You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto;
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let's call the whole thing off!

 

Thank you for pointing out the preciseness of the KJB in this particular area.