Is this use of "bravery" in KJV unusual?

"Easter" is a point in time recognised by the world.

The Passover is the Event recognised as a Jewish point in time and not recognised by the anti-semitics.

Bravery = courage. Courage is a type of beauty in consideration of character qualities.

Back to the context for definition may help, though I doubt one's bias will let them see this.

 

Why, pray tell, my dear friend, did the KJV translators not leave well enough alone instead of updated the Bible to the language of their times? They should have adapted to the English Bibles they already had.

The language had changed by 1611. It has changed since then - what is the difference?

I agree Sal, bias does indeed cause blindness.

I know these men did not carelessly choose to use the word "bravery" in the place of "beauty" here. There must have been a reason that we just can't see 400 years later.

BTW, if it gives you comfort, you are not the first person I have scared. But take courage - God will give you the bravery to deal with someone as scary as me. Or would that be the beauty to deal with someone like me?

 

Thank you Sal, another reasoned out post that shows what I have been saying...


If you are a true Christian, you will learn Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew...
No one should have messed with the true Bible!

We need to teach these languages to people so they can understand the Word of God...

Time to throw away our English versions! Go back to the Real Authorized Version... The Hebrew/ Greek copies...


Maybe I should add I'm being sarcastic

 

More like the bravery to deal with your beauty:laugh:

 

Would you please speak English?

 

I hope you can understand this...
After all, it is from the True Bible... Not adapted to English readers.
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

 

Ame! We need to conform to the Word of God after all and not try to conform it to us!

 

While you folks were being concerned about understanding "bravery" in this verse, I was trying to remember exactly what a "caul" was (I think my grandmother wore one once). And nothing has been said about the archaic meaning of "tires".

 

Seems that GOD, who doesn't needta vocalize in the air at all to speak, (He can use telepathy, as He does in visions) has adapted His word He made for man to the limited faculties of man, causing it to be written and spoken in the languages He made for man.

God has caused/allowed these languages to change and progress over time, it's plain to see, and has caused/allowed His word to be written according to these changes . And He has further blessed us by causing/allowing the older versions written in language styles of the past to remain before us for a broader view of His word.

He did not retire, nor lose interest in His word for us in 1611. He continues to oversee it and provide it in TODAY'S languages, which He also provides for us. Those who are stuck on a Bible version of the past are failing to put on the FULL armor of God, and are picking up only a short sword when firearms are available. That's bad enough,but then some of them are trying to convince other soldiers of God that these medieval weapons & armor are all that's available.

 

Why should I bother to read Greek and then be faced with an inadequate knowledge to interpret into my English understanding when it has already been appointed by the Lord and already have it in English form??

Maybe you should let God out of the little Greek box you keep trying to hold Him in.

Funny thing, I ask you to speak English and you copy and paste Greek.

 

By Divine appointment to have the word of God to the common man in availability in comprehendable English is having opportunity for non-Greek speaking peoples to know what thus saith the Lord. That is not conforming the word of God to man, but is Divine effort to conform man to the word of God.

To think we don't have the inspired word of God in anything other than the original tongues limits the Holy One of Israel and makes as if scholarly knowledge is required to know God. That would be catholocism all over again.

Welcome yourselves back into the dark ages.

 

If the meaning is current how then is it archaic and just not in use?

 

:laugh: Neither did God retire when the originals were given, but God definitely isn't confused nor outdated by the antics of men.

The "Bible version of the past" must be in reference to the KJB since you fight against it so much.

I never thought for one minute that the Lord oversaw anything we see as modern versions to offer such confusion to any era.

The terms are perfectly definable and relate the attire of that day.:sleeping_2:

 

No current definition of "tires" as a noun is the same as the KJV meaning in this verse.

 

This from a man who thinks that God has limited Himself to English used in 1611.

 

Because you wrote yourself, "God's word should never adapt to people. People should adapt to God's Word!"

So either you adapt to God's real word, written in the original languages, or you are guilty of being inconsistant...

You yourself said, "People should adapt to God's Word!"
Don't you believe what you wrote... Or do you really believe that God's word is not in the Greek and Hebrew...

Are you as kooky as Ruckman?

Don't you believe:
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ψυχικος δε ανθρωπος ου δεχεται τα του πνευματος του θεου μωρια γαρ αυτω εστιν και ου δυναται γνωναι οτι πνευματικως ανακρινεται (15) ο δε πνευματικος ανακρινει μεν παντα αυτος δε υπ ουδενος ανακρινεται (16) τις γαρ εγνω νουν κυριου ος συμβιβασει αυτον ημεις δε νουν χριστου εχομεν

Or do you depend on your natural ability to read English to interpret your translation of the Bible?

Don't you depend on God's Spirit to interpret what He wrote?

 

By Divine appointment to have the word of God to the common man in availability in comprehendable English is having opportunity for non-1611 English speaking peoples to know what thus saith the Lord. That is not conforming the word of God to man, but is Divine effort to conform man to the word of God.



This was so profound an argument that I felt like i could not better it. With thanks to my brother Salamander

 

Explain how it is you make the former meaning irrelevent?

 

Nope, just God meant what He said without the errors so common in modern versions, needless to say the omissions and corruptions of the texts.

 

So by your estimation, only the originals are God's word and the rest are cheap imitations?

To stand on the infallibility and preservation of God's word without error is never inconsistent.

Are you as kooky as W/H? and into consulting the dead?

I'm so sorry, I never realised you were that old TT, how is it Greek is your native tongue and you've lived nearly 2000 years?

Ever thought of making one of those 30 minute wonder drug shows on how to live longer?

Sure do, in the receptor language that is precise and not filled with witty inventions. "Tongues will cease"