1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Difficult Words

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by KJVBibleThumper, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Wow - going to the language that God had the New Testament written in is dangerous? I'd say that's a scary accusation.

    I have a Strong's right here. There is an error in how you are reading your Strong's. The definition is 1) to hasten, make haste; 2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence. Then if you use some different websites with the Strong's, it gives the different translations of that word in the KJV. My Blue Letter Bible has "AV - endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1" "Study" is the way the KJV translators decided to translate the word. However interestingly, the last definition of the word "study" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "To endeavor diligently." Saying that "spoudazo" means "study" as in our common language of today is completely 100% wrong. I'm sorry but taking a word in the KJV, going to the Greek then saying it means 'study' because it's in the definition is wrong since 'study' is not the definition but the way the word is translated in the KJV! That is kind of a catch 22 - which doesn't work for interpreting Scripture.


    That would be if you are correct that "study" means "study" in our common language. However, since the word in the Greek means "diligent", then i think it is clearly a much superior word than "study". The KJV translation of this word in our common language today is wrong. It is an outdated translation.

    Yes, we absolutely do this. There is no question. However, it is not at all the meaning of this verse.

    No - the ESV has not removed the command to study the Bible because the Greek did not say that. If you are looking at the KJV as meaning "study" as it does in today's language, then the KJV is absolutely 100% wrong in the translation of this verse. Yes - IN ERROR. However, since "study" meant to "endeavor diligently" during the 1600s, then "study" was the right translation. But when words change, we do not change the meaning of the verse to match it. If that's the way you're going to interpret Scripture, then James 2:3 will be talking about clothing that homosexuals wear. However "gay" in 1611 (and even in the first half of the 20th century) didn't mean "homosexual" but "fine, showy". Big difference, don't you think?


    I could have guessed you were in college by your misled mind.

    However, you are absolutely right. We are to study our Bibles, hide the Word in our hearts that we might not sin against the Lord. We are to have an answer for the hope that is within us and we are to be like the Bereans comparing all we learn to God's holy Word. But that is only part of 2 Timothy 2:15. It's an ingredient in being diligent to be a worker approved by God. Study, prayer, fellowship, right teaching, etc. are all ingredients but most of all we are to be DILIGENT in study, DILIGENT in prayer, DILIGENT in fellowship, DILIGENT in right teaching. We are to be diligent. THAT is what "study" means.

    OK - can you prove to me that the translators of the KJV are more easily qualified on the basis of their scholarly training? Are you telling us that God stopped being sure that there were men and women who strove to have an accurate version of the Word of God? That the many manuscripts that have since been found and more than anything else PROVED the words of the Bible rather than questioning them were put there by Satan? I'm amazed at this aspect of the KJVO argument. That God has stopped working. That there are NO men who are capable of being used by God. That there is not ONE man in the last almost 400 years who God can raise up to study the evidence and be sure that what we have is true.

    What a limit to God. My God is more than able to be sure that not only is there scholars today like Logos and John of Japan who faithfully translate God's Word into other languages, but that they are being used by God in a mighty way. I see God work. I'm sorry you don't.
     
  2. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    IF someone had a valid argument, then it would stand. However, wrongly translating a word then using it as your defense, isn't a very good argument.

    The administrators see this. Not one person has said that the KJV is not the Word of God. It is, it is faithful and it is a wonderful Bible today. However, it is not the only Bible that is valid today. My ESV says the same thing as the KJV and tells of the mighty works of God, His plan for salvation, the true doctrines of the church and what our future holds. I know for sure my NIV, NASB and NKJV says the same thing. I saw a HCSB at church in the lost and found that I tagged because I'd love a copy of it too. I'm pretty sure that says the same things as well.

    Come here with an erronious argument and it will be discussed strongly. Come here with truth? A different story.
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a great amount of irony in someone talking about a "little knowledge" of Greek and then citing Strong's for support. Let me suggest that you never cite Strong's as support for a point made in the original language. If you don't know Greek, then stay out of it.

    On to the point, there are some less common words in the NIV and other modern translations. However, they are not archaic.

    You didn't cite it accurately. The KJV has "porch of pillars." This is, in modern terms, called a colonnade.

    In modern terms, a "riot" is a mob scene. The word here means "reckless living." "Dissipation" is a strange translation of it, though it is what the Greek Lexicons give.

    A filigree is a setting. That is different than what is commonly thought of as an "enclosing."

    Yes, a floodgate is opened and water comes rushing out of it.

    The Hebrew word refers to a biting insect, which is what a gadfly is. There is a Hebrew word for destruction. It is not used in that verse.

    This was a mistranslation likely by the KJV. The word Goiim here, while it can mean "nations" is actually a place name, most likely. If you read the verse, you will see that there is a listing of kings and their territories. "Nations" makes no sense. "Goiim" as a city name does.

    Strangely enough, the word in Rev 20:14 is hades

    The word "incite" means to provoke.

    A jowl is a cheek.

    The word is Magoi, which is transliterated as "Magi."

    A marauder is a robber.

    The word used is "mina." It is a measure of money.

    Naive is an excellent rendering here.

    The word in Hebrew is Negev. It is the name of the territory.

    The word in Hebrew is Nephiliim.

    The word probably refers to the contents of the stomach and intestines, which is what offal is.

    The word is plied, not piled. It means to ask question.

    The Hebrew word means "pinions." The KJV is misleading here. It uses the word "wings" twice, where the verse actually uses two different words.

    The meaning is uncertain here.

    So as we can see, some of these are simply words you should get out your dictionary and look up if you weren't familiar with them. They are not archaic.

    Some of these are places where the NIV didn't do a good job.

    In the end, comparing teh KJV to the NIV or any other translation isn't good methodology. It really makes no sense.

    We need to compare translations to the original language to see what God inspired.
     
  4. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    The KJV is commonly called the Church of England Bible. Most of the translators were Church of England vicars and Bishops. It is amazing that more Baptists are not Anglican since many passages have definite leanings to the Anglican theological viewpoint. I learned my Anglican teaching through the KJV.

    The only Godly men were Anglican in those days?

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  5. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Is that not the EXACT same thing people say about the mis-understood words in the KJV?? Yet, that suggestion was scoffed at when it was concerning the KJV.:BangHead:
     
    #25 Baptist4life, Jan 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2009
  6. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    How many people know or have access to the 1828 Webster dictionary? A 21st century dictionary will not give the proper definitions for many of the words in the KJV but they WOULD give the definitions for the less common words in the NIV.
     
  7. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, if a Bible has even one error in it, then it is not the Word of God, if there is an error, then it cannot be perfect, and God's Word is perfect.

    Jesus couldn't have been God's perfect son if He had even a tiny drop of sin in Him, likewise, God's Word "which he hath magnified above his very name" must be perfect.

    This thread is not about the ESV, but I might point out that the ESV reads completely differently then my KJV does in many places. Among which are [FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29;and Romans 16:24.

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=News, Times, Roman, Arial, helvetica]I might ask you, what are the "true doctrines of the church"? Are you talking about the Fundamentals as set forth in the Fundamentalist Papers? The true doctrines according to the Catholics, whose MSS are the basis for the ESV? What? Lets nail this down before we get any further.

    And on that note, I bid ya'll good-night, God bless, and I will see(metaphorically) ya'll tomorrow.

    Thumper
    [/FONT]
     
  8. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Then the KJV1611 and it's subsequent editions are not God's Word.

    Then the KJV is not God's Word.



    I don't care so much about if the ESV reads differently than the KJV in places (it will - because it is using ALL of the manuscript evidence AND it's written in a modern language rather than a 400 year old language. The KJV is not the measuring stick. The originals are.



    LOL - The ESV and the Catholics have nothing to do with each other. I've seen that argument and find it quite elementary.

    However, I am speaking of the true doctrines of the church that are explained through the Scriptures. If you don't know them, you might want to study more. :D I don't go by man's papers but God's.
     
  9. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny, I've asked almost the same thing. Well, I did add the WES-NT, as well.

    And the silence has also been deafening here, as well.

    Ed
     
  10. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with this is that it is a choice of false alternatives.

    Ed
     
  11. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like something I once heard. "Be careful with your words. They could come back to haunt you."
    Well, you, I, and anyone else certainly have the right to take whomever we wish. However, it is nothing but opinion, at best, that the KJV translators are more (or the same or less) qualified than are any other similar translation team. I'll offer the opinion that no one translator of whom I'm aware, KJV or any other version, with the possible exceptions of John Wycliffe and John Nelson Darby, could come close to matching the abilities of William Tyndale.

    Darby, after all, did translate the Bible into the English, German, and French languages, from the original languages. And all the translations are above that of the average bear, from what I've been able to ascertain.

    Not too shabby, IMO. No one else has ever come close to doing that, of whom I'm aware.

    Ed
     
    #31 EdSutton, Jan 12, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2009
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Hi Thump,

    Trust you will have another great semester at PCC.

    Do you really believe this statement though?

    If the KJV translating team did not delve into the Greek, how did we get ther marvelous translation?

    Your implication here:

    is inconsistent. If this warning applies to Bible translation as you imply, could the KJV translating team not be guilty of the same for changing the words of earlier English translations?

    Your use of the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test has nothing to do with archaic and out of date words. It is based only on the numbers of syllables in a word and the number of words in a sentence. It does not attempt to take out of date words into account and therefore is false measure of readability.

    One quick example - I love the KJV word 'careful' in Philippians 4. I wish it still meant 'full of care.' It is a nice, easy two syllable word that every child could read. The problem is that it no longer means 'full of cares' but now implies the opposite of recklessness. The average reader would not think to look the word up in a dictionary, so without instruction would interpret it this way 'Be reckless in everything'

    The word itself is easy to read, but the meaning as evolved in the last 400 years. We tell people all the time 'be careful' but God says, 'be careful for nothing.'

    Anyway - the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test was not designed to deal with definitions of words, just length of words and sentences.
     
    #32 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jan 13, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2009
  13. 4His_glory

    4His_glory New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thumper,
    In reality, dealing with the Timothy passage is not totally off topic. You brought up the archaic language issue, and it was addressed. An example was given of an ambiguous word in the KJV of which you attempted to defend.

    I really would like an answer to my question. I want to know if the old spanish Bible is wrong along with the MVs in not using the word study. We can start another thread if you like.
     
  14. 4His_glory

    4His_glory New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought the same thing. I am glad you pointed that out. Some believe they can use Strongs to determine the original meaning of word. The problem is that context is necessary to understand the exact usage- hence the need to really study and know Greek.
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think so and I didn't hear anyone scoff. There is a difference between a word that you do not know and a word that is archaic.
     
  16. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist


    That's ridiculous and WEAK, and you know it.
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    The definition Thumper gave from Webster's 1828 is one of the six definitions for the noun form of the word. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, please) that "study" is being used as a verb in this verse. As annsi pointed out earlier, one of only three definitions of the intransitive verb form is 'to endeavor diligently'.

    I would certainly think that it would be most beneficial that if one must run to a dictionary when reading the Bible that he would have a firm understanding of the structure of language in order to find the right definition.
     
  18. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    :laugh:

    Oh really? Words that are no longer used and words that you just don't know (but are modern words) are no different? Since we can get proper definitions of modern words from a typical dictionary certainly DOES make a difference.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? How so? Feel free to offer an argument in support of your statement. Don't just make assertions.

    What exactly are you saying, and why?

    Are you are saying that there is no difference between a word you don't know and a word that is archaic?
     
  20. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm saying that some of the words of the NIV are more ARCHAIC than some of the words in the KJV, yet I NEVER hear anyone criticize the NIV for archaic words!


    NIV KJV
    Colonnade I Ki 7:6 Porch
    Dissipation I Pet 4:4 Riot
    Filigree Ex 28:20 Enclosings
    Floodgates Gen 7:11 Windows
    Gadfly Jer 46:20 Destruction
    Goiim Gen 14:1 Nations
    Hades Rev 20:14 Hell
    Incited 1 Chr 21:1 Provoked
    Jowls Deut 18:3 Cheeks
    Magi Matt 2:1 Wise men
    Marauders Job 12:6 Robbers
    Mina Lk 19:16 Pound
    Naïve Rom 16:18 Simple
    Negev Gen 12:9 South
    Nephilim Gen 6:4 Giants
    Offal Ex 29:14 Dung
    Piled Lk 23:9 Questioned
    Pinions Deut 32:11 Wings
    Porphyry Est 1:6 Red
     
Loading...