Future of the KJV 1611

But isn't that what some folks believe? The more I read what they write the more I am convinced of the parallels with the New Age they have. They focus on self and how their witness and affirmation comes through self in the words God told me...

I remember well a conversation I had with a man. During the conversation he told me, "The Holy Spirit told me..." I responded with the question, "Whose spirit?" He knew exactly what I meant and never said another word.

 

"I don't know much about language history, but I suspect modern Arabic and Hebrew have some roots together since they seem to be similar."
"
They are.

 

First of all RR, one needs more than just a dictionary to study the KJV. Not just for the vocabulary but for the differences in the syntax and grammar as well. Difficulties in this area have been posted here at the BB.

Something very similar happened to the Latin Vulgate (LV) as is currently happening to the KJB and we should learn from history.

As Latin transformed into Italian, the common man was removed further and further from the truth until only the educated priests of Rome could comprehend the Scriptures, the common folk eventually losing the Scriptures completely and dependent entirely on those priests.

The Church of Rome at one time called the Scriptures of the LV "the language of heaven" which was better than the Greek and Hebrew (DeJaVu KJVO?)

Obviously that final condition is not what we have with the 17th KJV English vs 21st century English, but the trend is in that direction.

We have seen the huge language difference in a recent post as the Anglo-Saxon language transformed into 17th century English. Each day we lose a little more of the Word of God in the KJB to the dynamic of the ever changing English language.

Each generation should have the Scriptures in the "koine" of their native tongue, 17th century Elizabethan-Jacobean English is not the "koine" of the English language today.

There are some modern versions particularly the NKJV which use the TR.

HankD

 

Quote #2:

The disconnect that exists between these thoughts is this:

Why would it matter how many languages are lacking a translation of the Bible, if your solution for all of those people is to universally teach them English so that they can know & understand God's Word? </font>[/QUOTE]You took what I said out of context. I am speaking to all of us who already speak English, but you cannot teach some one what the Bible says w/o reflecting back to the English?

No. Cannot be done, not this day in time. Why not? Because the English language has it's reach into almost every language in use today. It is the language sought after to know to be able to communicate the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I cannot fathom this lack of understanding that I am exchanging posts with those who speak English, then seem to think they could translate the Original autogrqaphs into another language and never regard the English they speak!

 

So are you saying that we lost our authority when the originals were lost or destroyed?

 

Even better, lets get a Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic dictionary and throw out ALL of the English Bibles. </font>[/QUOTE]But then wouldn't you understand them in English? Of course. How else would you? You wouldn't.

 

Larry, in answer to your question about Acts 2, notice it was the HolyGhost that did the interpreting, the gift was to the hearers, by Him, not in the transaction of verse by the speakers, they spoke in their native tongue, the hearers heard them in their own tongue.

 

So are you saying that we lost our authority when the originals were lost or destroyed? </font>[/QUOTE]That is what they cannot seem to grasp, my Brother.

 

But, the Bible says the newly Holy Spirit baptised believers spoke as the were given utterance by the Holy Spirit. It says nothing of how the hearers heard - that is just your speculation. The Bible makes it clear, in other places, that the gifts were given to the users of the gift. Then, they exercised those gifts which indeed blessed others.

 

I believe you're misinterpreting, TC, everytime I preach the Holy Ghost gives utterance, the gift was they heard them speak in their own tongues, and they also knew they were Galileans at that, but that is a doctrinal discussion, they declaring the "marvellous works " of God.

They didn't "excercise" anything, speaking in tongues in the Divne sense is not ever learned, practiced or strengthened by excercising it. Unless of course you're a "crazy"matic!

 

Oh, and where does the Bible say they were "newly Holy Spirit baptised" ?

 

What? Are you on drugs? Do you really believe that no other language can communicate anything as good as English can? Talk about an ego trip.

 

Acts Chapter 2. Which is what you said you were responding to. Hello computer.

 

Someone gave me an interesting thought...when the Holy Spirit caused the audience in Acts 2 to hear the apostles' words each in his/her own tongue, more than one of them might have copied down those words, with the Holy Spirit's having given them perfect retention of them, again, each in his own language. Some of those copies could've been translated themselves until the translations came full-circle back into Greek or Aramaic. Of course, many words would now be different because of the differences in languages, with something altered in each translation. Thus, we have the many differing mss of the Scriptures today.

BUT...The HAND OF GOD has been in all these translations.

 

No, I just do not input my own speculation into the text. It could go either way - the Bible does not explicitly say how the gift worked (just that it did).

I did not say that they exercised as in practice. But, they did have to open their mouth for the Holy Spirit to use.

 

That won't resolve all of the comprehension problems.

Conversation, communicate, let, prevent, etc. are words that have understood definitions today. The problem is that those understood definitions are not the definitions intended in the KJV. In each of these cases, the definition intended in the KJV has totally fallen out of use.

The trouble isn't with words that people see and know that the don't know what is meant. It is with words that people see and think they do know what the words mean- when they actually don't.

 

So are you saying that we lost our authority when the originals were lost or destroyed? </font>[/QUOTE]Study textual citicisim and you would not ask that question.

 

Great answer gb,

I've said it before and here's what I think is going to happen to the KJV. In about 50 years, people who are not carrying around a new version will be carrying around what is now the NKJV.

It will have gone through at least one more revision before then.

I will be in heaven praising Jesus and visiting with my mother and brother; and Michelle will be sitting in her wheelchair yelling at her roommate (because her roommate's hearing aid is out) that her NIV is not a Bible, while still holding onto a KJV Oxford well used and with the pages falling out.