Language changing demands a new version?

There is a word in the KJVs for Isaiah 36:12 which according to my
1978 Dictionary is 'Now vulgar in all uses'.

Here is part of the agreement new folk agree to on the
BB (Baptist Board):

I.E. this verse cannot be posted on the BB for it contains a vulgar word.

Therefore, the policy of the BB dictates that:
the language changing demands a new version.

Here is a user friendly new version, CSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003):

Isaiah :12 (CSB):
But the Rabshakeh replied, "Has my master sent me to speak
these words to your master and to you, and not to the men
who sit on the wall, [who are destined] with you
to eat their excrement and drink their urine?"

 

Oh, how silly! WHO ELSE but GOD could rise up in those days & make no man sure of his life? Job is stating GOD SEES ALL THEIR EVIL, and His eyes are on their ways, and their apparent triumph only temporary. (Job 24:23) Try reading the WHOLE context!

 

I wasn't going to say any more on this thread, but it is painfully obvious that while Salamander may not be illiterate, he is illogical.

:wavey:

 

Oh, Ed, don't you know? KJVO's are ALLOWED to substitute another word for any they may deem inappropriate. Baalam's XXX- no, donkey... etc.....

 

No it isn't. It is a practical, common sense concept: If you want someone to understand you, you speak to them in language that they understand. If you want someone to understand what they read then you ensure that its language is the one they learn, use, and understand.

Two things there.

One, there are a significant number of words in the KJV where the English meanings understood by modern readers are not the same as the meanings when they were perfectly appropriate translations of the underlying Greek. A few of those words where the modern reader might think they know what is being said but be very wrong are "conversation, communicate, and let".

Second, who made you or any other KJVO the authority to decide whether other people can understand the KJV sufficiently or not? Who made you all the authorities for determining when it is appropriate to produce an updated translation? Frankly, you don't get to say whether the KJV differs enough or not. That is a matter of Christian liberty.

The only valid argument "against" the KJV is that it uses grammar and diction that are difficult to modern readers and might possibly lead them into a false understanding of what God originally inspired in Greek/Hebrew.

:laugh: :laugh: So IOW's, when you say something that others disagree with for very good reason, they are guilty of loving to argue unless they shut up and let you "drool" whatever you want onto the pages of an open discussion board, right?

No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.

 

Err, you mean people should be dependent on someone else to tell them what the Bible means? Isn't how we got 1000 years of biblical ignorance as the RCC corrupted the faith more and more to enrich and empower vain men?

If they can read and understand then the most definitely know more than when they could not read and understand.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's priceless, Salamander. The topic is not the KJV, but whether the language of the KJV should be updated for later generations (refer to the OP to refresh your memory if necessary - you wrote it). The answer of course is a resounding "yes." What you call "sound reason" is nothing more than your errant opinion based merely on your belief in the KJVO myth. Just because someone has a problem understanding every word from English that was in use 400 years before they were born doesn't make them illiterate, except in your own judgmental opinion. You and I were raised on the language of the KJV, so we don't have that much problem with it - after it has been explained to us for years. The fact is that those folks you call illiterate are not illiterate, and they don't need education as you so falsely claim. They have simply never been exposed to 17th century English and they don't understand it. It would be like you trying to go to another country where you don't understand the language - you would be disadvantaged because of your "illiteracy."

The KJVO myth is still supported by "your type" even though you have been educated to these KJVO errors over and over and over again. This only goes to show that education is very often futile - especially when those who have been educated think that their opinions outweigh the truth. God wants to communicate with people in a way they can undeerstand - He wants the very young to be able to understand His word - not for people to have to seek explanation. Yet supporters of the KJVO myth stand against God's desire that all should be able to understand the Gospel.

Salamander, you said "The mindset is everyone here is just about sickened with the persistent drool from those who love to argue." Yet you continue to argue against truth constantly. Why don't you give it up and accept the truth that the KJVO myth is nothing but a fable? There is no "sound reason" of any kind to the KJVO myth that "your type" supports - neither scriptural nor intellectual. Yet you love to argue and support something that makes no sense at all. Jesus told us to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt 28:19 NKJV) yet you would stand against His will by keeping the Gospel shrouded in antiquated language and difficult to understand for many. Yet you don't practice what you preach, Salamander. Why don't you give up modern versions like the KJV and go back to the original English? After all, the KJV did the same thing you condemn modern versions for doing. It was just as wrong for the KJV to make changes as it is for the modern versions to make similar changes.

 

In a nutshell, it's quite evident that GOD has caused His word to be updated in English ever since He first introduced it to English. And He's done the same thing with French, Spanish, etc. How easy it woulda been for God to have preserved the originals and prevented any updating! Clearly, it is His will that His word be in the current languages, and clearly His will has been done.

And lemme repeat...these updates do NOT cause older versions to "expire". They're still just as valid. Just as the Model-T has been replaced by newer models, but is still a car, the older Bible versions have, or are, being replaced by current-language versions, but are still valid versions.

 

I like your analogy, Cranston. Just as a Model-T is still a car, so the KJV is still a Bible. It isn't ready for the trash heap - not by a long shot! :thumbs:

 

Amen, Bro...PREACH IT!

The KJV will NEVER be ready for the trash heap, long as this age lasts. And neither will be the Geneva, Bishop's, Coverdale, etc. However, just as the Model-T, the original SUV, was made for the roads of 1908, the KJV was made for the English readers of 1611. We have cars for today's roads, and Bibles for today's English.

 

you're equating God with the Word of God. And by your statement, I can assume any version--including the AV--is "man trying to improve upon God.

But, since I don't agree with your statement, you're out there by yourself.

One thing about it...if logical gymnastics become an olympic sport, Sal's my choice to beat the Russian team...:tongue3:

 

Actually, by YOUR estimation, some KJVOs will continue to glue feathers onto the KJVO hippo & blow on it, hoping to make it fly. Sorry, it won't sing, either.

 

Again, how silly! In Job's day, no MAN could rise up & make a lotta other men not sure of their lives.