KJVO?

You gave me a verse and I translated it. The word God or anyone else is not to be found in the Hebrew.

Yes, the KJV is archaic. The manuscripts that were originally used to translate the KJV are not the best that we have. I'm not sure what you mean by the referred books. I do not apologize for the word that Westcott and Hort have done. They, just as we are doing now, are searching to understand exactly what was written in the original documents. What we see in such texts like the ones published by Kurt and Barbara Aland are more accurate, I believe, than what was used by those who translated the KJV.

How else does the author of Job use the Hebrew mashak?

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord [which] thou lettest down?

Drag fits in with the author's use of the word, so I will not make any apologies for the translation.

The Greek for elkuo also has the idea of dragging, as seen in not only Biblical texts, but the usage in other contemporary literature. Look at John 18:10, John 21:6, John 21:11, Acts 16:19, Acts 21:30, and James 2:6. Does this look like a nice little "hey, please come here, pretty please," kind of drawing, or a more forceful one? It is clear with a basic understanding of the Greek and a basic understanding of hermeneutics that drag is a pretty close English approximation to both mashak and elkuo.

Yawn. And I'm not a WHOnly, as I do not hold their text to be the inerrant Word of God. They have been shown to have some holes in their text, just as the KJV has.

 

And that is where we differ. I use the Greek and Hebrew to understand where the English is coming from. You can stick to your KJB, I'll continue studying and learning the Biblical languages so I can better understand the intent and meaning of the Biblical authors.

I will add that Biblical scholars definitely understand elkuo in the sense of dragging - Where's Dr. Bob and Pastor Larry when you need them!?!

 

Hi Bro Ricky, This statement is unfortunate. Maybe I've misread you or misunderstood you (it wouldn't be the first time)but are you saying that the English is superior to the Hebrew and Greek? I would appreciate a clarification. Bro Kevin

 

You are absolutely right. And how did they fish? They netted them and dragged them in.

 

Hi Bro Ricky, This statement is unfortunate. Maybe I've misread you or misunderstood you (it wouldn't be the first time)but are you saying that the English is superior to the Hebrew and Greek? I would appreciate a clarification. Bro Kevin </font>[/QUOTE]Hey Pastor Kev, here lies the whole problem of the AVOnlies, trying to make the "fruit" the Final Authority" instead of the "Root"
Fruit=English Translation
Root= Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Originals

 

Actually, Elizabethan English was the most modern English in 1611. There is, and was, no such thing as "Church English". The KJV, and every other valid English Bible version, is limited to using the English words that make a correct translation of its sourrces. Therefore, many English words & expressions used in 1611 aren't found in the KJV, such as 'culverin, gonfalon, forsooth, methinks'.

And the British of 1611 understood perfectly that "conversation" as used in the AV meant "lifestyle", but to the English speaker of NOW, it means,"oral exchange of thoughts". Why should we be limited to a BV whose language as it was understood 400 years ago no longer means what it did then?

Did it ever occur to the KJVO that the successive English BVS from the time of Caedmon onward were written in the most modern language of their days? Some British clerics of KJ's time faulted the AV for being TOO modern!

 

This is due to the loss in translation and the moderrnization of our language. That is why I referred to Job 24:22. Those who translated the NKJV consider the pronoun "He" to mean God, but if you read the context to the remainder of the verse, the NKJV translators have God rising up and leaving all men without being sure of life, now that is directly against the Doctrine of Salvation.Also it is against the flow of the passage and the context. One other thing to note is the NKJV uses a semi-colon where the KJB has a colon.

I think it's important to understand here that the Bible accurately relates what these men said whithout giving any endorsment. In fact, later on Job and his three friends are actually reproved for what they say!

 

KJV James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

NIV James 2:3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet,"

 

KJV James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

NIV James 2:3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," </font>[/QUOTE]If we are to take the KJV at face value regarding this word, gay, does that mean special preference to those wearing homosexual type clothing? Alert! Double standard

 

To be "gay" means "merry & joyful". To be a sodomite is to be "wicked & sinful". The Bible says it's wrong to apply good for evil.

 

I agree Granny and we should update the KJV English to make sure that doesn't happen.

HankD

 

Not 4 me, Bro.HankD...I like the old paths where is the good way. No need to fix sumptin' if it ain't broke.

 

Old paths???

 

OK Granny if you want to retain the word "gay" in the Bible how about:

KJV Philemon 1:20 Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

As opposed to:

NKJ Philemon 1:20 Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in the Lord.

HankD

 

Granny - I'm not intending to be "smart" here but what about this:

If the old paths are the good paths - why not insist on worshipping in stone buildings with no electricity, wearing robes and using ONLY papyrus or vellum manuscripts and not store-bought new fangled bound paper Bibles.

New and old are relative! And the KJV is NEW - relatively speaking.

 

I am not sure what your point is, but the Greek word is "splagchnon" from the same Greek root we derive our English word "spleen." The NKJV seems to substitute "kardia" for "splagchnon." I agree, in modern colloquial English we would say "heart" but that is not what God said. He said "splagchnon" which does NOT mean "heart." I believe it is the job of the reader/preacher/teacher to know/inform that the Jews thought of the bowels as the seat of affections.