The real reason I am KJVO

I do have a copy of the KJV, so I will certainly keep your remarks in mind. The English dictionary is an excellent suggestion.

I have certainly learned, over the last 10 - 12 years, that bible study is essential for growing in my faith.

Thanks so much for your helpful suggestions!

 

I feel the same way about paraphrases; they might be helpful, but I don't think it's the same as reading the "word of God". It sounds as if I can't really go wrong with KJV, NASB, or ESV.

 

By the way, you must have a whooper of an answer for us, so inform all of us of your intellect.

 

Below is a link to a very good volume, that will give you all you need to know about the words used in the KJV, and some of the phrases used that can be sometimes confusing to the non-initiated.

I have had this book for several years, sadly it is no longer available on the open market. But they have several used, and new ones here. Also it is available in a download, but unless you pay for the download it comes in a non-standard file. Which windows will not open.

Its the one with the Green and Violet cover, not the other.


http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/KJVWRDBK

 

it is true that word meaning has changed through the years. If you have the 1828 dictionary available to check the word "Humanitarian " , see if the modern meaning is a word used for someone who does good for his country or other good deeds. In a old dictionary I have, one of the meanings states that a humanarian is "Someone that believes that JESUS was only a mere man." As much as I can remember that is what it say's. Please check it out and let me know if your dictionary gives the same phrase or meaning.
Thanks

 

vRo:1:21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
2Co:10:5: Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The two versus have the word "imaginations", we would think today the meaning was thought. No so in the English of the KJV, but it goes beyond thoughts to actual doing of contrary actions. This is one of the many phrases, the KJV Word Book clues you in on.

 

Thanks, I will look it up tomorrow.

 

//
On Off

if ( document.getElementById("wordclick_off") && getCookie("wordclick_enabled") == "no" ) { document.getElementById("wordclick_off").checked = "checked"; }; imagination

One entry found.





Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion Pronunciation: \i-ˌma-jə-ˈnā-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari Date: 14th century 1: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality2 a: creative ability b: ability to confront and deal with a problem : resourcefulness <use your imagination and get us out of here> c: the thinking or active mind : interest <stories that fired the imagination>

If you read 2Cor 10:5 "Casting down rationalizations........" You wil get the correct understanding.......

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes I see where you are going, but in the 1611 English the same word. "Imaginations"; carried with it beyond thought, into putting that same into actual action.

So the word "Imaginations", carries with it a greater weight than just saying thoughts.

 

quote: Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion Pronunciation: \i-ˌma-jə-ˈnā-shən\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari Date: 14th century
-------------------------------------------

You will notice the definition for imaginations remained the same from the 14th century, hence the same meaning applied in the KJV 1611 etc.....We need to go to the Greek for the actual meaning of the word, and it does mean reationalization or reason...I forget the actual Greek word now, but I could check my NT.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Well, since a vegetarian is one who eats only veggies, I thunk a humanitarian was a cannibal.

 

Imaginations - also noted as an Evil plan or Scheme. As can be seen from the two verses I noted, not only as a plan, but being involved in.

 

Humanitarian; wasn't that Jimmy Carter ????.

 

No, He ate peanuts! The meat of the peanut fields.

Cor, we are going bonkers tonight!

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have no intention of attempting to set fire to all of Joab's barley fields, 'er I mean set fire to all the straw men that Goldie has borrowed for this occasion (even though I have already addressed a couple of points above in 'bold blue'), for several reasons.

One, I type very slowly, at best, and with the lovely combination of arthritis and diabetic neuropathy, added to the fact that I have had absloutely no typing training, and whatever skills I may have, are entirely self-taught, from a very poor intstructor, in this.

Two, our computer is acting up these days, and can "lock up" or shut down completely, with no warning, at any time (meaning I could lose the very post I am working on), and I am unable to even have a clue as to why this is occurring, or have any ability to fix the problem. To say that I am "technically challenged" with computers, is an understatement, roughly on a par with equating a WWI era biplane to a B-52, B-1 or a B-2 bomber. (The US planes had to be transported to the European theater on a ship, "for cryin' out loud," and I don't mean any "flattop" aircraft carrier, either!) My lovely, talented, and long-suffering bride :love2: does have the ability to fix the computer, but not the time needed, at this moment, and I will not ask her to do so, at this time.

Three, most of the serious questions, above, have been answered before, and which answers seem to be ignored on a more or less regular basis (although certainly not always by the same poster, and I am definitely not singling out Goldie in this, by any stretch, for he/she is not alone in this, or even anywhere close to being the most prominent). However, I have myself, in fact, responded to some things Goldie has raised previously, and had my responses ignored, and thus see no good reason to engage in any "Encore performance" at least at this time.

Let me add that I do understand the issue, (and do agree with some points, even while disagreeing with others) and am confident I could adequately respond to most of the substantive points, off the top of my head, should I have so chosen.

Fourth, some of this "stuff' is intended only to be inflammatory, IMO, and that I will not dignify more than it deserves.

Fifth, it's Christmas, so I'm gonna' try to be nice, even if I don't survive the attempt, 'cause I wanna' get a head start on Santa's "NICE" list for next year!

"Nevertheless, I have a few things against (this above post)!"

The implications contained in (or the direct words of) phrases such as 'false "bibles"'" and "perversion" when applied to any translation, version, or edition of the Scriptures, are "an attack on the Bible", IMO. :tear:

Ed

 

Ed,I just wanted to correct a few things you said.First of all, John Wycliffe knew no Hebrew or Greek.He only knew English and Latin.And there is conflicting information about how much of an imput he had in the initial "Wycliffe Bible".John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford certainly were the main translators of the second "Wycliffe Bible".

Point #2: The KJV committee adopted a great deal more than "almost half" of William Tyndale's work.Estimates range around 85% for the New Testament and 75% of his Old Testament work.

 

Uh, read what I actually said, stilllearning. Did I say you're a doubt caster or that you said modern Bible translations aren't God's word? Not at all. I said those things about "those who want to deceive true Bible believers." Are you saying that you want to deceive true Bible believers? Do you have a guilty conscience? If not then why take it personally? I didn't say those things about you unless your desire is to "deceive true Bible believers."

As for your question about God confusing with multiple Bible translations, that's a ridiculous thought. God has preserved His word in various Bible translations in order to avoid confusion. When a living language like English evolves over time and words are no longer used or their meanings change it's often necessary to update the words used to convey the message in order to avoid confusion. Using language that's over 400 years old often contributes to confusion.

Using the various Bible translations found at http:www.studylight.org I didn't find a single Bible translation that uses "young maiden" in Is. 7:14. Several translations (GNT, RSV, NRSV, ERV, CJB, BBE and JPS) use "young woman." The Message uses "a girl who is presently a virgin." HNV uses "almah," the original Hebrew word. And the New Life Bible uses "young woman who has never had a man." Last time I checked a young woman who had never had a man was - guess what? - yep, a virgin! Still, in these various translations, the reference made in Mt. 1:23 refers to a virgin. The only exceptions are the NLB which duplicates the Isaiah terminology with "young woman who has never had a man" and the JPS which is a Jewish OT only.

According to Strong's "young woman" is a perfectly acceptable translation of the Hebrew almah. This Hebrew word, according to Strong's, is translated as "damsel" once, as "maid" twice and as "virgin" four times in the KJVs.

Before you make the accusation that words are removed check 1 John 5:8 to see if the words are actually removed or if they're still there even though they're not found in the previous verse. I believe that only when you take the verse out of context and the next verse isn't considered can it be said "words are removed." No doctrine is changed. Since we don't have the original autographs so that we can compare the texts, it's just as likely the later texts now called the textus receptus added words in v. 7 that duplicated words in v. 8. Scribal error is a definite possibility here since later texts have these words while earlier (and therefore more reliable) texts don't have the words.

This is nothing but your unproven opinion based on your presupposition. It's not a valid argument for anything.

Actually, the word "one" in 1 John 5:7-8 is not a deity issue, but something else entirely. It means the three agree.

This is true to an extent. That's why I normally avoid using paraphrases and one-person translations. However, when words are no longer used in a particular language, or when word meanings change, it's often necessary to change the printed words in order to avoid confusion.

A good example to help you understand this basic truth is the word "prevent" found in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in the KJVs. When the 1611 KJV was translated, this word meant to precede or to go before. Now, in 2008 (almost 2009) the word has an entirely different meaning in its common use. Now it means to keep something from happening. Someone not raised knowing the archaic meaning of the word can become confused over its use in this verse. That's why it's more important to keep the meaning alive than it is to be stuck to a particular set of printed words.

Did John attach special significance to particular words on a page? Of course not - not even in the KJVs. Neither should we become overly concerned about a particular set of words when the message is what's really important.

John didn't say "these are the exact words." What did he emphasize? That's right - the message! And that's why we should try our best to preserve the message today even if it becomes necessary to change the words used to preserve the message.

That's why God has graciously provided modern Bible translations for modern readers. The modern Bible translations keep the message alive and fresh just like when it was first written.