How the KJV 1611 handled the Apocrypha

skan,

for one to be a true mv "defender" they have to have double standards. It's SOP for them.


Jim

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Bob quoted:

Language changes and THANK GOD His Word, written in Greek, can be translated now into 2004 language that people can understand.
--------------------------------------------------

Dr. Bob,

As I have said before, it is not the changing of archaic words to simpler words for the common person to understand that is the problem. It is the texts that underline the mv's that have been responsible for the many omissions/deletions of God's pure word of truth and the changing of words which alter the meaning of the context, or that try to fix what looks to be contradictions, which in fact are not, which then changes God's truth in his word. THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS, and why they should be REJECTED by those who love the Lord Jesus Christ and his pure word of truth.

For a pastor to refer to other versions in order for a better understanding of the plain text in the KJV says to me, that this pastor is not relying upon the wisdom and understanding that the Lord Jesus Christ has given him, but what he has gained from someone or something else, and a corrupt one at that.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I defend all bibles. I will defend the KJV and I will defend the NIV. Both are the word of God. Unfortunately the KJVOs attack the word of God as found in the NIV and Dr. Bob attacks the word of God as found in the KJV. Both are equally guilty.

 

No, your post attacked the words of the KJV.

And I demonstrated to you that those "problems" could be solved by simply looking the words up in a dictionary. And how did you respond to that? You said "I would figure you to spout that nonsense."

And, of course, I have never claimed it was the best in every place, but neither have I condemned it because it was translated by "Anglican Priests" which is a term you like to bandy about as another means of attacking the KJV. You get all upset when the KJVOs do the same thing to the NIV or other newer version, but you do exactly the same thing to the KJV. It doesn't matter who did the translation. The accuracy of the translation is all that is at issue, not the personalities involved. But for some reason you seem as obsessed as the Ruckmanites. They have their bogey man, the "Alexandrian Cult" and you have yours, the "Anglican Priests."

I grew up 21 years ago when I turned 21. And I expose hypocrisy everywhere I find it. I expose it when it is posted by KJVOs and I expose it when it is posted by you. If you don't like your own hypocrisy being exposed then I suggest you take your own advice, "grow up."

Yes, your failure to understand is sad. I don't equate "bible" with the KJV. But the KJV is a bible, unless you now doubt that also, just as the ASV, NASB, RSV, NIV, NKJV, and all the others are bibles.

And, unlike you, I don't attack any of them. But you constantly and viciously attack the KJV then say "I'm not attacking the KJV, I'm attacking KJVO!" But, of course, you do attack the KJV as your little post about how dumb your students are clearly shows.

You like to stir up strife. You like to attack the KJV under the guise of exposing the falsity of KJVOism. But by so doing you expose yourself as being as wrong as Ruckman and Riplinger, and on exactly the same level.

 

Those who aggressively defend the KJV...

...I seriously doubt that they OBEY the KJV version text.

They do not, and I'm sure of it.

They defend what they do NOT practice.

They have never put a mill stone around their neck and cast themselves into the sea--after offending a little one who believes in Jesus.

They have never plucked out an eye that offended them, nor amputated a hand that sinned.

They have probably disobeyed: "forbid not to speak with tongues."

They probably let women worship without a head covering.

Why does the KJV have 66 books, one 6 shy of 666?

Who was King James, and why is his version and person exalted so highly?

KJVOnly cultists do not realize that variant readings can actually enhance our understanding of the Word of God.

The same verse in the same wording can get mentally stale in our limited human minds. Nothing stale about God's Word, but staleness occurs in our minds, we psychologically grow immune to it. A new version or even a paraphrase can wake us up and inspire a new appreciation of a principle.

Worship a version of the Bible? Not me. Can't figger that out. Not at all.

Every time you paraphrase a Bible verse, put it "in your own words" failing to quote exactly from KJV or NKJV or whatever, you are creating a version of your own. That's okay. As long as the truth remains. Truth is not bound to one version in the past.

Originally the NT and OT were oral only. So to be really purist elitist you could say all written versions are corrupt. Only the oral tradition is pure. Ha! Jesus wrote no books!

 

I disagree! It IS one of the essential issues concerning the publication of the Word of God as far as I am concerned. And I do understand both the meaning and usage of the koine Greek of the apostolic era having studied it formerly and otherwise for over 30 years.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html

That is really a nit Skan and probably wrong in terms of period influence as well. The Jacobean period was short (1606-1625). The King James translators started their work (1607/8), the reign of Elizabeth was 1558–1603.

I say Elizabethan because of the powerful influence of Shakespeare (1564-1616) that had a far greater impact upon the English language under the reign of Elizabeth, King James and the AV translators than that of the Jacobean period.

http://www.bardweb.net/england.html

You misrepresented me. I didn’t say the Word of God is lost. I said it was more and more being lost TO the present generation with the passage of time.

HankD

 

Try using KJV in a Junior High Sunday school class.

You have to explain constantly, while their misty eyes wander around bored. So we got NKJV and that works a lot better.

Jr. High kids can barely smell, I mean spell or read basic modern English. use KJV and you've lost em. Sure you can patiently try to explain the eccentric archaic language, but do they care to hear these obscure ramblings? No.

 

Then you know that Koine Greek was NOT the common language of the people (which was Aramaic) but rather the common language used by speakers of different languages, or the lingua franca! It was a language understood by Jews (whose common language was Aramaic), Romans (whose common language was Latin), Greeks (whose common language was Attic), and the rest of the known world due to the success of Alexander the Great uniting the world 300 years before Christ.

 

Phillip, I could make a similar list from the NIV, NASB, ASV, etc., of words you probably don't understand without checking a dictionary or asking someone, but that does not invalidate the NIV, NASB, ASV, etc., any more than a list of words Dr. Bob's students don't understand invalidates the KJV. My youngest son doesn't understand the words of any book, but that doesn't invalidate the book.

 

Skan, it is my opinion that you are so intent on being right that you have gone beyond debate into sword clashing rhetoric and simply stating the obvious as if it were the issue.

The word "koine" itself means common. Read again a functional definition of "koine" and go back to the URL I previously posted.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html

There is a reason why God chose koine Greek as opposed to Classical:
To bring the Word of God to the widest demographic of peoples (GENTILES as well as Jews) in the language of life ("Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence...Koinê was the language of life and not of books") to the then populated world.

. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine

So, after endorsing your statement of the obvious and just in case we have lost the real issue and the thrust of this dialogue: Elizabethan (or Jacobean) English is no longer the "koine" (and actually never was exactly such) of the English speaking peoples.

Therefore IMO there is a need for this generation of English speaking peoples (or any other peoples) to have a Bible translation in the own "koine".

For now IMO, the NKJV/NASB fulfills that role since (at least to me) it is apparent that the KJV does not except in our cloistered churches where the KJV dialect is spoken and understood.
Many of these church folks not understanding the needs of "the lost" and condemning modern "koine" mv supporters as pushers of "satanic counterfeits".

That is not to say that the KJV has not been greatly used of God or that it is not the infallible inerrant Word of God or that it should not be used at all.
No one has to let go of it (having worn out several myself).
Have it, love it, use it.

But, the audience gets smaller and not just because of secular disinterest but also because of a widening linguistic disconnect.

Many translations have had similar histories, namely the Old Itala, the version of the early Roman martyrs, out of it came the AV of the Roman world the Latin Vulgate.
After several centuries Italians no longer versed in Latin had the Word of God but mumbo-jumbo-ized.

Did you know that the phrase "hocus-pocus" comes out of the Latin mass?
It is what "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body-Latin Vulgate) sounds like when rattled off by a Roman priest in the consecration of the host in the Latin mass, this phrase from the Vulgate must be used or the host is not consecrated (Pre-Vatican II)

I bring this to bear because we Baptists now have people saying that one can not be saved except by the preaching from the KJV.

Do you see a similar non-RCC trend developing?

It is IMO one of many such as "the language of heaven" and "secondary inspiration" and "advanced revelation" developing out of the plain and clear error of the KJVO.

Not saying that you are part of that radical element either but often you give that impression.

HankD

[ March 14, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Once again you have completely missed the point. You belabor the idea of "the bible in the common language in every day use" and insist the common language is early 21st century English when, in fact, the idea of "common" did not mean "commonly used in daily life" but a language held in common by people of all nationalities. By your logic everyone should learn English as the "common language" and only use one vernacular of the bible. You sound more and more like a Ruckmanite every day!

 

It was both as well as the native language of Macedonia, Greece and much of Asia Minor, the fertile ground of the apostolic Church...

"Koinê was the language of life and not of books"

"This allowed his (Alexander) combined army to communicate and was also taught to the inhabitants of the regions that he conquered, turning it into a 'world language'".

There you have it.

Read the websites.

Let the readers decide.

HankD

[ March 14, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Wrong again. The native language of Macedonia was Macedonian, the native language of Greece was Attic, and the native language of much of Asia Minor was Galatian, a form of Celtic. And, of course, the native language of the bible writers, with the possible exception of Luke, was Aramaic.

 

Skan writes...

Had you not said this brother Skan, I might not have responded but...

From The speech of Alexander I, when he was admitted to the Olympic games...

Bill Gatzoulis ibid above.

Not during the spread of the Apostolic Church by the Apostles: (see not below RE: fluent)
In his book A DUMBELL'S GUIDE TO GREEK by Glen Maiden,
He says that there are four major Greek dialects: Aeolic, Doric, Ionic and Attic
And that Greek replaced these dialects and that they were neither spoken nor written by 300 A.D. and that Attic was used by the classic writers of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. because of its refinement, precision, and beauty.

He also says that Koine lasted from the Alexandrian period, 4th century BC until the 5th century AD and that Koine had a wide geographical range, and was spoken from Gaul to Syria.
He requests that direct quotes not be used if you respond. You can find this publication online at: http://dumbellgreek.gospelcom.net/intro.html

OK Skan, I will cede one thing: my use of the word native for “much” of Asia Minor. Based on all the other documentation I have provided, I can safely say that “much” of Asia Minor was fluent in Koine. Also the NT was codified into the inspired text of Koine not Aramaic.

In fact in deference to you brother, I will retract the word “native” in all places and replace it with “fluent”.
I grant you that because you are right on that point and is more akin to the issue being debated.

Having said that here is my re-re-iteration of my position:

Koine Greek was chosen by God to spread the Gospel and the other inspired NT writings To bring the Word of God to the widest demographic of peoples It was the “common” language of the hellenized world (Gaul to Syria as stated above) and most of the “common” people (average rank and file) humanity of the hellenized world were fluent in koine.[qoute]Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html

As an illustration of my use of the word koine, which would evoke a better common bond of understanding if I went into a restaurant and said to the “average” waitress the following:

Perchance, I, having found grace in thine eyes , wouldst thou fetch unto me a vessel of coffee and a morsel of apple dainties?

OR

Would you please bring me a cup of coffee and a piece of apple pie.

The KJV, while being the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God by virtue of its derivation is not "koine-common" English in any of the meanings of "koine-common" as illustrated above. To me this is an issue, not a divise issue (as far as I am concerned) but nonetheless an issue since Elizabethan-Jacobean English is fading into history.

HankD

 

Once again, just because some modern day fools have a language they call "Macedonian" doesn't disprove the existence and use of Macedonian in Macedon from about 300BC until 500AD. If you would check the Linguistic List of Ancient and Extinct Languages you would note the following entry: Ancient Macedonian: Subgroup ID: IEGB, Subgroup Name: Macedonian. "The ancient language of the Macedonian kingdom in N. Greece and modern Macedonia during the later 1st millennium BC. Survived until the early 1st millennium AD. Not to be confused with the modern Macedonian language, which is a close relative of the Slavic Bulgarian."

A little more research would have uncovered this little tidbit: "From about 350 B.C. to 330 A.D., Attic Greek was the common language used throughout Greece and conquered territories."

So, it would seem you are wrong again, twice, but did (finally) admit your error regarding Asia Minor. Maybe we are making some progress after all.

 

Fools Skan?

I thought "common" was "koine"

To cede a point does not make one wrong.

Again, let the readers discern who is wrong.

Peace brother.

HankD

 

I believe we might be just a little off the theme here. What should matter to us is what language(s) Jesus used, and what languages besides the obvious might've been used by those who wrote the NT mss now known.