Words, DO matter

Yes, words are important. That's why choosing a good translation is important. Translations like the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV... are very good translations that are more literal in their translation.

 

For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you,and they believed that you sent me. (1984 NIV)

Is there any material difference in the two translations?

No translation will have the "exact words" of the original. Translations are approximations.

 

Stilllearning is answering a question that no one is asking.

I don't hear the rationale, "Words don't matter."

Meanings matter. Theology & Doctrine that is enumerated by said words matter.

But if Version A says, "Blessed art thou" and Version B says "Blessed are you," and since Version B is more understandable to today's reader and is thus chose more often by readers of God's Word--Well...I don't see the issue.

But I'm sure you have an issue with it. Or if not, you'll find one.

 

There are thousands of changes even in revisions of the same translation. Do these matter?

 

Changes. Changing what? If the KJV is your standard of measuring changes --then of course modern English versions do not use the same form of words as do the KJV family.

The message of the Bible has been retained in modern versions. Things are not worded the same as the 1611. But because the phraselogy is not the same doesn not mean there has been a watering-down or compromise of the original texts.

The Word of God has been preserved in hundereds of versions in many languages. All true Christians acknowledge and rejoice in that fact.

I do not believe in perfect preservation however. No translation is perfect. Nor should any translation be regarded as such. That's idolatry.

LOL! Of course you are. You wouldn't even mention "changes" unless you have a standard in mind in which the modern versions have deviated in their wording from the KJV family. You certainly aren't speaking of the original languages.

 

Change from what, though? From Hebrew and Greek to the language you speak in your country? Or from words used in one particular English translation?

If the second, word meanings change. Here are some from the AV (KJV) that are still in the English language today, but with completely different meanings:

Coast(s) once meant "region(s)" - now means "place(s) where land and sea meet"

Carriages once meant "luggage", "things carried" - now means "vehicle for carrying things or people"

Publican once meant "tax collector" - now means "person in charge of a pub or inn"

Prevent once meant "go before" - now means "stop something from happening"

There are many more.

If words in the target language (in this case, English) have changed in meaning, then if we leave our bible translation exactly as it was 400 years ago, we have a bible that doesn't correctly translate the Greeks or Hebrew.

 

Yes, I can read the second passage and instantly understand its meaning.


"The palmerworm minishes and prevents the sky lowering"

might have been great in 1611 but nowadays we would say

"The grasshoppers decreased in numbers before the sky becomes overcast."


Here's some phrases I've made up using words from the KJV. Words DO matter. Try to understand these sentences without consulting Webster's 1828 dictionary:


The collop in my buckler looks like a knop.

That oblation of sodden flesh of chamois with mallows was quite tasty.

I outwent, fetched a compass and unloosed the lachet of the enemy's mail.

That Euroclydon brings glister and carries a firkin of rain.

I used my exactor to mete the offscouring on the pressfats.

My wen hath improved sith I’ve added nitre to my meat.


Why should people have to battle archaic words and phrases? Or as David Lamb pointed out, word meanings have actually changed over the years. Who hasn't seen this phrase in the KJV and wondered what it meant:

"Let your conversation be..."

If I were to say I caught my teenage son playing with his sackbut, should I discipline him or encourage him? Hmmmm???

 

Words in Aramaic? Greek? Hebrew? or KJV?

 

What do you mean by "DO"? Are the capital letters indicitive of an acronym? Or, is does it merely represent the emphasized English term meaning 'to perform an action'?

What do you mean by "matter"? Did you intend for us to understand "matter" to be a generic type of physical substance?

And what do you wish to convey with "words" set off by a comma? "Words" can mean 'the exchange of angry discourse'.

So that, one possible message you communicated = Hostile remarks, produce material.

[sarcasm off now]

You see, words cannot be defined independantly and still be expected to produce a coherent message. Words only have appropriate meaning within a given context, my friend. That is, words give to each other their true meaning within a specific context. Therefore, the broader context (message) is actually more important than the individual words (which is a gestalt effect).

For example, James and Paul can use the same word (grace) but in different ways (differentiated through the proper interpretation of the context). Words do not need to be actually "changed" (exchanged) to miss, confuse, or diminish a message. Conversely, words can be exchanged and still retain a message.

 

Your misuse of John 17:8 is appalling! You have taken Christ's statements completely out of context in an attempt to make your point. Even if this verse could be applied to the Bible (which it shouldn't), it is NOT a certainty that the manner in which the Father chose to communicate with the Son could be equally applied to His communication with us.

In addition, you are just flat wrong about revelation within the heads of the Apostles. I recall several occassions, all chronologocally following Christ's statement above, where the Lord did reveal things to Peter, Paul, and John by dreams and visions.

 

Mind giving some examples from the NIV,HCSB,NASB or ESV please? Or are you just speaking off the-top-of-your-head in vague generalities?