Webster's Holy Bible

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Chris Temple, Jul 12, 2002.

  1. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Noah Webster may be the greatest linguist American English has ever had. The excellent preface to his 1833 KJV update is found here.

    Therein, he says:
     
  2. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Lies will be found full of inconsistencies under cross-examination, but TRUTH will stand."
     
  3. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    And did you remember to snap your helmet on, Gumbo, before you hit the ground?
     
  4. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    And this relates to this thread... how? :rolleyes:
     
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    'cept in the case of KJBOism, no x-examination is needed--its self-contradiction is evident.

    truth will stand all right, needing no help fr the onlyists, be they the LXX-onlyists, Vulgate-onlyists, Masoretic Text-Onlyists, TR-onlyists, Majority-text onlyists, or, bless their hearts, KJBOnlyists.
     
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    I do not agree with what Mr. Webster said because the KJV is not like any other English version. Use Mr. Websters dictionary if you are having trouble with words like fetters... He is an expert in his field of words. We are not dealing with just any book where you can change to words to suit the culture. The KJV is the only English Bible written where you use scripture to interpret scripture. Line upon line... precept upon precept... here a little there a little. The truth is not staring you in the face... In the KJV you have to dig it out as you were mining for gold... Gods Gold... Treasures that when you find them will strike you blind! Been to Gods storehouse lately?... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    What??? Explain.

    :confused:
     
  8. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    Search the KJV and you end up blind?? That clinches it-- I want a translation where you end up seeing.
     
  9. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Christian Cynic said:
    You are definately a hoot!... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  10. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Tyndale I still don't get your previous post, what in the world are you saying, go be a miner?
     
  11. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    You are asking me and you are the Pastor... Dig... Dig... Dig out those spiritual jewels and treasures!... Brother Glen :D
     
  12. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Brian use scripture to interpret scripture! If scripture ever contradicts scripture then the contradiction is in reader not the scripture!... Scripture NEVER contradicts scripture but balances and harmonizes! Like the previous scriptures in Isaiah and Luke... Perfect balance and harmony! God expects nothing less!... Brother Glen [​IMG]

    [ July 13, 2002, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  13. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I know this. I am not wanting more explanation on what "scripture to interpret scripture" means, but what "The KJV is the only English Bible written where you use scripture to interpret scripture."

    Sound very Riplinger-esque to me, yet you don't want to be associated with her? Explain what you mean by your claim.

    Brian
     
  14. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]So the KJV leaves you spiritually blind? Isn't that an improvement?
     
  15. longshot

    longshot
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... I'm talking about spiritual eyes not natural ones!... Brother Glen </font>[/QUOTE]So the KJV leaves you spiritually blind? Isn't that an improvement?</font>[/QUOTE]The mere reading or study of the Bible (no matter how intense), without GOD's action upon the study, will result in exactly what ChristianCynic suggests - spiritual blindness! Seeing spiritual truth within the Bible occurs only when GOD himself opens that understanding (Luke 24: 45, Matt. 13:13, John 6:44 ). Translations alone cannot do what ChristianCynic asks (where one ends up seeing as a result of a translation). That can only occur when GOD himself gives one the eyes to see - regardless of the translation.

    latterrain77
     
  17. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really don't want to see this thread die, or move off of its original topic. I think a parargraph by paragraph exegesis of Webster would be helpful, as he had much too many valuable things to say to present day KJVOnlyism, way back in 1833. (Note that 1833 is pre-W-H; so Webster is content to remain with the Byzantine NT text).

    He says:
    Notice his points:

    1. The translators made many alterations in the language of former versions. Note that the KJV itself is a revision of earlier English versions. If the KJV was word-for-word perfect, then that means that earlier versions were not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. But a translation does not need to be perfect to be the preserved word of God. The KJV translators made no such claim to perfection.

    2. No small part of the language is the same. The KJV followed the general style of the earlier versions, particularly Tyndale's.

    3. Webster affirms that:
    a. the language of the KJV is, in general, correct and perspicuous
    . The KJV is correct but not perfect.
    b. The KJV English is the genuine popular English of Saxon origin peculiarly adapted to the subjects.
    c. The KJV is, in many passages, uniting sublimity with beautiful simplicity.
    d. In Webster's wise view, the general style of the version ought not to be altered. This keeps English updates as updates yet familiar, and not radical new translations.

    Comments?
     
  18. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like Webster's comments, the English language is in constant flux change, and these types of revisions are needed. I really agree with the "common usage" comments.

    One issue in particular from his comments that stands out the most to me though, is about the style. When the KJV was first published, it was criticized for being too simple, too common. Today, its style is considered reverent, beautiful. I think a true "update" of the KJV should not only fix the archaic terms/phrases, but also tries to actually break the "beautiful" style a bit, bringing it back down to earth. The scriptures were originally written with a very common, plain style. Allowing the KJV to stand for nearly 400 years has painted a sort of false image of the scriptures, and "accuracy" should not just be about original words, but maybe original style as well.

    I'm sure we've all heard people who, when praying out loud, use "thee" and "thou", etc. This is because they think it sounds more reverent and beautiful. Maybe it does, but that's an extra layer not present or needed in scripture.

    Brian
     
  19. longshot

    longshot
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0
    Webster quote;
    "Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of God'."


    Perhaps I'm wrong, (again [​IMG] ), but isnt this the crux of the debate in a nutshell? And could this have been the beginning of the present day KJVO debate? What I'm wondering is, did this update cause the controversy a new version brings today?

    (I know, more questions than comments again. sorry [​IMG] [​IMG] )
     
  20. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points Brian. And didn't the NASB and now NASB Update do this? ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...