study-work diligently

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Let's "study" the rendering in 2 Tim. 2:15-"STUDY to shew...". The greek word here is the infinitive 'spoudazo', which means 'endeavor, work diligently, exert, make haste'.

    The English word 'study' , in earlier times meant 'work diligently, endeavor, strive' as well as 'examine or read closely with the intention of learning', depending upon the context. In Timothy, it means 'work diligently' according to the Greek. The KJV is not wrong to use 'study' here, but later versions aren't wrong, either, to say'work diligently, give diligence, strive'. In fact, the KJV renders 'spoudazo' as 'endeavor, do diligence, give diligence, labor' , etc. everywhere else it appears in the Greek.

    In another thread, one member suggests that 'work diligently' is wrong in newer English BVs, but that's not so. It's merely an update in the language. I believe the KJVOs are incorrect in their criticism of this update.

    Lemme also throw in the KJV's 1 Thess. 4:11, "and that ye STUDY to be quiet..."

    Here, the Greek word rendered 'study' is 'philotimeomai', which means 'to strive earnestly, to make it one's goal'. Most later versions say 'aspire, seek to, endeavor'. Again, both they & the KJV are correct, given the old use of the word 'study.

    Thoughts, anyone? Please, let's confine this to just this particular issue.
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    What needs to be said? Folks who follow the [erroneous] doctrine of infallibity for the AV words will be upset when you show an example of how the English language has evolved and words now mean something radically different . . to the common reader.

    Remember, the old definition of "study" from 1611 is STILL in some dictionaries, so it is NOT obsolete (it is circular reasoning of course; it is in the AV so we have the old definition in the dictionary to help people muddle through archaic wording, and then, because it IS in the dictionary, they claim it is not archaic).

    But the common reader, the ploughboy if you please, would read "study' and think of it 100% different than its use in 2 Tim.

    Or tell them "let" does NOT mean "allow" but rather "hinder" or "stop" and they look at you askew? Or any of hundreds of other now-archaic words.

    Languages evolve. Some in the AV were ALREADY outdated and not used by even the common man in 1611 but chosen by the Anglicans for a purpose.

    Study is not one of them. ;)
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    This is off-topic.

    Even though the word was spelled h-a-t-h in the 17th century,people were prounouncing it as has.
     
  4. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    Not if that ploughboy knows sports.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sports? Or tennis? :laugh:

    Sure a tennis net is JUST what people are thinking about when they read "he that lets will let" . . . Guess the holy Spirit has been called worse!!
     
  6. jonathan.borland

    jonathan.borland
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting this. On "filotimeomai" (= strive, although those who have studied Greek will see two lovely words within this compound), it's only used 3 times in the NT. I think it's interesting that Paul "strives" to preach the gospel where Christ was not named (Rom 15:20), and he and others "strive" to be accepted by the Lord (2 Cor 5:9), and he urges the Thessalonians to "strive" to keep on being quiet (1 Thess 4:11). The being quiet part is imperfective, usually indicating a continuous, beginning, or repeated action.
     
  7. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Way off subject, but the above sounds like my wife giving me advise.
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Depends on how good she is at throwing a rolling pin, Bob!

    Again, I believe the KJV is correct to use 'study' here, given its now-archaic use in 1611, and newer versions are correct to say'work diligently, strive', etc. according to today's English.
     
  9. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    This view does not negate nor take away from the fact that the modern day take of 'study' or 'being studious' is the foundation which enables action in a positive manner.

    IOW - One will only 'work diligently' if one knows what one is to be doing and that comes from and is founded in the study of the word. So in truth both apply with equal emphasis on both aspects. One can be very studious and never do anything just as one can do many things and never really know why the are to be doing it. Thus to the one who knows to do good and does it, to him it is not sin but righteousness. :)
     
    #9 Allan, Nov 24, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 24, 2008
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, one can work diligently to do ANYTHING, good or bad. Hitler was quite STUDIOUS in his drive to power. paul was specific about what he wanted Timothy to work diligently at.
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you think evolution has precedence over established doctrine. Truly sad, and what about when the old paths are commanded to be sought?

    Your total arguement is summed up as one in opposition to Anglicans and amounts to nothing.

    To "let" means to hinder anything from preventing due course of action, of which Jesus rebuked Peter, "Get thee behind me, satan!" is a PERFECT example of letting something we might view as a justifiable course of preventative measure.

    What the KJB words secure is a spiritual understanding to Scripture which evolved English cannot even begin to offer!:godisgood:
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    My present studies are my endeavor to examine my walk with the Lord and determine the perfect will of God for myself.

    You're arguing from a convoluted definition of the word study as if it doesn't mean what it already does mean.:laugh:
     
  13. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    So you're suggesting that English was perfected in 1611 (or is that 1769?) and anything since is a perversion? You're a hoot!
     
  14. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe he means that the words used in the KJV, and the English language at that time, had a more DEFINITE meaning than the "modern" words do today. Changing them to "modern" words or paraphrases does not give the same EXACT meaning as the word used in the KJV. On that point I totally agree with Salamander.
     
  15. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    So language in 1600 was more precise than language in 2000?
     
  16. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe so, yes, as do quite a few language experts.
     
  17. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    Could you point me in the direction of some of these experts please for further reading?
     
  18. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if I would say that 17th century english was more precise, but they certainly had a much larger vocabulary. The vocabulary of modern english is woefully lacking.
     
  19. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    "One of the most fertile periods of language growth transpired in the years closing the 16th century and opening the 17th" ---Michael Reksulak, William F. Shughart II and Robert D. Tollison, "Economics and English: Language Growth in Economic Perspective" Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Oct., 2004), pp. 238.
     
  20. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0

    In both cases you cited the KJV usage is consistent with the usual definition of 'study'. The sense is to work hard with the mind. This may be determined from the context.

    Your assumption is that the KJV used the word in an archaic sense. That can not be proven from the context.
     

Share This Page

Loading...