Finally the truth about the KJB

I can agree to an extent.

The original giving by "god-breathing" of the NT Word of God by the Spirit of God was (as many continue to point out) codified in "koine" Greek or the language of life and not classical, poetic or "beautiful and eloquent" as you point out is the style of the KJHB.
To me this proof argument of "beautiful" or "eloquent" or "dignified" quality of a translation as a kind of heavenly stamp of approval upon it is based upon a misplaced piety. That all God does is "beautiful".

Here is what is said of the living Word :

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

However, I agree with you that the KJB is a book unsurpassed in the English language in terms of beauty and eloquence.

But QS, these qualities are subjective. So, if one sees the NASB or the Douay-Rheims or the NWT for that matter in this same subjective light as you see the KJHB do these translations also get YOUR stamp of approval?

For over 1000 years the Church of Rome and their children (such as the Church of England) poured the same kind of praise and pronouncements (with hell-fire attached for dissenters) upon the Latin Vulgate as modern KJVO folk do the 1611KJV (and in fact the Church of England used English translations of the Vulgate as Scripture pre-1611).

Through functional and some dynamic equivalence we can emulate the will of God to bring His Word to each generation aimed at the “koine” class of people and this is happening as we speak (type)

While I disagree with the W&H theories ” (they are yet to be conclusively proven IMO) of “shortest”, “oldest” and “most difficult” constitutes the desired reading of a TR variant, those who follow after this theory have done far more to disseminate the Word of God to the 21st century English speaker than the divisive and often venomous KJVO.

The KJV translators also putting their stamp of approval upon even the “meanest” of the translations and calling them the Word of God so they themselves were not "ONLY"ists.

HankD

 

From another page, QS says, "English can define Koine Greek, but Koine Greek doesn't define English." and "Why does anyone need to go to the Greek to find what the English already says?"

I think it is clear what he things about which language is superior.

 

Maybe you should have typed that in Greek and you wouldn't have made the typo.

Again, tell me one word or subject in the Greek that cannot be defined in English? This is the second time I ask you this, you still haven't answered. Must be the English IS superior to the Greek.

It is clear that your suppositional knowledge of Greek is wallowing in the mire of pride. </font>[/QUOTE]John mentioned two words for love that were unable to be expressed accurately in the KJV, and Hank added a word for wept that was unable to be expressed accurately. How many more do you need?

 

I suppose "dignity" is in the eyes of the beholder.

If w/h believed the Bible they wouldn't have spent such ill-directed energies to re-translate the MSS, and only the Greek, to dispute that which is already proven tried and true. Their maliciousness is identified in their re-inventing the methods they alone used to re-define.

Sorry, the cliche' is "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder". There is NOTHING beautiful about the mv's, unless you think britney or madonna are worth kissing, I do not. </font>[/QUOTE]So what wil do with youir MV. At one point in time you would have been labeled as a heretic. There were those who thought a translation should have never been done. To do so could have meant you would have been burned at the stake.

So if older is always better we would not have any translations.

 

Maybe you should have typed that in Greek and you wouldn't have made the typo.

Again, tell me one word or subject in the Greek that cannot be defined in English? This is the second time I ask you this, you still haven't answered. Must be the English IS superior to the Greek.

It is clear that your suppositional knowledge of Greek is wallowing in the mire of pride. </font>[/QUOTE]The distinction between the words translated love in verses 15 and 17 of John 21.

The distinction between de and alla

 

It's one held by orthodoxy. I'm sorry that you think so lowly of that. You'll notice that I didn't say that they are undefined but that they are not "expressed accurately."

But what kind of love? How do I know that Peter and Jesus are not talking about sexual love? There are different types of love that are used int he Greek, and the English should accurately represent those different types as best as it can.

But what kind of weeping? How was Christ's weeping different from that of the people two verses earlier. There are different types of weeping that are used in the Greek, and the English should accurately represent those different types as best as it can.

Because your knowledge is incomplete. Is it not better to understand 100% than understand 50%

All you have to do is go to a basic concordance and look up words like eros, agape, and philos and see just how different those words for "love" are.

I learned from studying the Scriptures. Why do you continue to blaspheme God's word by saying such things about what He has inspired?

 

O.K., gb, explain what the distinctions mean? </font>[/QUOTE]Both are adversative conjunctions and translated in English as "but". One takes a sharper turn than the other.

The difference between understanding the Greek and understanding the English is like walking into a room lit by a 40 watt light bulb and then being lit by a 500 watt light bulb. The Greek is much more specific. English is very ambiguous.

For example: How are you today? Is it plural or singular. Maybe context might tell in English. But in the Greek you know.

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

Nice argumentative tactics there. Rather than understand the issues just engage in name calling.

The Greek has more than one word for love. Is the distinction between them always communicated in your English translation? Not always. If you read John 21, in the KJV, you would be under the impression that only one word was used for love because two different Greek words are translated as the same English word -- "love."

What the distinction between is is a matter of interpretation. That two different words are used by John and not by the KJV is a matter of fact.

While we can define both Greek words, it is not a "word for word" process. It is to translate the idea contained in the word.

Because your translation and the translators who wrote it may or may not have it right. They are fallible men practicing the age old art of interpretation. As time has passed, we have learned more and more about these words and have come to understand more precisely what they mean.

The "alla" and "de" is a better example because the difference is clear in Greek; it usually not communicated at all in English. As much as you are dogmatic on this, how did you not know that? Or are you telling us that you have dogmatic opinions on something that you are not well versed in?? I would think someone who is dogmatic on a topic has taken the time to educate themselves fully about the topic.

The problem is, as Will and so many others have shown us, is that a STrong's concordance is not an adequate education in this field. People think they are experts with answers when in reality they don't even know what the questions are. As always, my appeal to everyone is to learn what the real issues are before going out on a limb from which your only recovery is an embarrassing admission of error. Will has already left himself there several times. Unfortunately, he compounds it by not being able to bring himself to admit it. We can all do better.

 

I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Matt. 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

But that is not all! How about the readability. What English tense is being rendered here? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? And what is the difference between being "an hungered" (etc.) and being "hungry."? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question?

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is confused and radically obscure. Anglican Bishop (1613-1667) Jeremy Taylor gave us this translation, "he was afterwards an hungry."

The NASB is very plain and easy to read, "He then became hungry," a very accurate translation of the Greek tense here, the active aorist indicative.

 

Isn't the reason for this obvious? You speak English. If you spoke You ask for a definition of a Greek word. What language do you want him to give it to you in?? Of course, he will give it in English. That seem really obvious ...