Language changing demands a new version?

[Salamander]

I was reading this post and it struck inme in, well, that sortof way!:laugh:

Language changes, so should translations, what is important is understanding the Christian Gospel message.

Since language does change, does that mean we should always trash the former meaning?

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

God does not just speak English, neither are just English speaking people being saved.

David

Thanks, David, for clearing that up. Does God also speak ebonics to substanciate the Ebonics Version?

Do you think English or Chinese will be the predominate language spoken by men in the near or far future?

Would it not be best to understand the former defintion, in context, to render the topic discussion fruitful when teaching, preaching, or just personal studying, the Bible?

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ed Edwards]

THE PENNY & the KJV

Here is an explination of an archaic KJVs usage:

Rev 6:5-6 (KJV1611 Edition): And when hee had opened the third seale,
I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld,
and loe, a blacke horse: and hee that sate on him
had a paire of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the foure beastes say,
A measure of wheate for a penie,
and three measures of barley for a penie,
and see thou hurt not the oyle and the wine.

In 1611 the penny (a small British copper coin) was a day's wages.
In 96AD, when the Greek was written, the 'denarion'
was a day's wages (a small Greek copper coin).

So this scripture is predicting a time of famine.
You can barely feed your family (a day's wages for a day's food)
OR you can barely feed your live stock (a day's wages for
the barley for the animals). So you have to choose between
feeding your family now or in the futrue.
Forget anything more than the basics, like oil or wine

I've actually heard preachers (BAPTIST) preach this teaches
a time of wealth & plenty (cause if you have a dollar, you can
buy all you want to buy). This is also predected by Ezekiel
in Ezekiel 38:11-12).

This is a serious 'making of doctrine' from a misunderstood
archaic KJV word.

(BTW, 'beast' here is a good being so really should read
'living being'.)

 

[rbell]

I refuse to read Sal's post, because it's not in koine greek.

 

[Salamander]

OK, but so you heard some preacher say something by application, but the understanding is contextual to the time frame. Any serious Bible student KNOWS that a penny is a day's wage in that time period.

So your point is none. especially since you demand that the Germane text be the Bible when it is the only available text in 1611.:thumbsup:

 

[Mexdeaf]

So, you are saying it is wrong if one chooses to read the NKJV because the language is more modern, but if they use a KJV and look up the 'archaic' words in a dictionary it is okay?

Example:

Isa 8:21 KJV- And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]Bestead
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]Meaning: hard pressed; greatly distressed. This word is used only once in the King James Version, see: Isaiah 8:21. It is the translation of a Hebrew word meaning to oppress, or be in circumstances of hardship. (Web Bible Encyclopedia)[/FONT]


Isa 8:21 NKJV- They will pass through it hard pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:I was reading this post and it struck inme in, well, that sortof way!:laugh:
Since language does change, does that mean we should always trash the former meaning?

Well, maybe not trash it, per se, but we shouldn't keep using it when the majority of your audience doesn't understand it.

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

We should use the language style our audience best understands. Whether used for good or evil, God has made all languages, and he continues to make new ones or cause/allow changes in existing ones.

Thanks, David, for clearing that up. Does God also speak ebonics to substanciate the Ebonics Version?

If enough ebonix speakers, IN GOD'S OPINION, were unable to understand the "majority" everyday American English style, I trust God to give them His messages, even if it means making an accurate ebonics Bible.

Do you think English or Chinese will be the predominate language spoken by men in the near or far future?

I don't believe Chinese will be heavily-used that much outside the borders of the nations that now use it as their primary language. And there several dialects of Chinese, as there are of English, Spanish, etc.

Would it not be best to understand the former defintion, in context, to render the topic discussion fruitful when teaching, preaching, or just personal studying, the Bible?

I believe that's often done right now, and often to the detriment of more than one sermon. A small example is when a preacher using the KJV comes to "Suffer little children". Seeing the look of puzzlement on some of his audience's faces, he'll back up & say, "Back when this bible version was written, 'suffer' meant 'allow'. "

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?:smilewinkgrin:

What's wrong with simply reading the Scriptures in our own language?

 

[Bro Tony]

The whole point of the OP condemns the very Bible the poster says they only trust. You dont use a 1611 KJV--you use and upgraded version of the KJ. Because language changes does not mean updates changed the meaning. The whole purpose for the update is so the meaning remains the same.

Bro Tony

 

[Ed Edwards]

OK, but so you heard some preacher say something by application, but the understanding is contextual to the time frame. Any serious Bible student KNOWS that a penny is a day's wage in that time period.

So your point is none. especially since you demand that the Germane text be the Bible when it is the only available text in 1611.:thumbsup:

Uh, er, well here, this was available in 1611 and already in the
used book stores:

Rev 6:5-6 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And when hee had opened the thirde seale, I heard
the thirde beast say, Come and see:
Then I behelde, and loe, a blacke horse,
and he that sate on him, had balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the mids of the foure beastes say,
A measure of wheate for a penie,
and three measures of barly for a peny,
and oyle, and wine hurt thou not.

400 years later we would say:

Revelation 6:5 (NIV):
When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard
the third living creature say, "Come!"
I looked, and there before me was a black horse!
Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand.
6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying,
"A quart of wheat for a day's wages,
and three quarts of barley for a day's wages,
and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

 

[Logos1560]

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

Would you claim that none of the words or language used in the late 1300's Wycliffe's Bible, in the 1500's Tyndale's, or in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, etc. should have been updated?

Should all English-speaking believers have been required to learn the vocabulary of John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, or John Rogers instead of reading updated and revised versions of their translating in later English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible or the KJV? When some KJV-only advocates seem to condemn the updating of archaic words, by the same reasoning they would be condemning the KJV and its updating of many archaic words in the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision.

If you want examples, I can give examples of words in the earlier English Bibles that were updated in a later English translation or in the KJV.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

whatever, but u don't seem to have any qualm w using a non-Latin translation "just becos" the predom language changed to English.

or is this a form of "bowing down"?

there's nothing new abt this form of argumentation ... single version onlyism rose to its pinnacle at the Council of Trent, which anathematised those who moved w the language, but its revival by KJBOism pretends to be something new n insightful.

 

[Logos1560]

Since language does change, does that mean we should always trash the former meaning?

Do you accept the meaning of Lucifer that is given in the 1395 Wycliffe's Bible at Job 38:32?


The old 1300’s Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate may have been the first English Bible to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" into English at Isaiah 14:12. The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“


The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?” Does this evidence suggest that the rendering “Lucifer” was first introduced into the English Bible from the direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate?


At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.

 

[James_Newman]

Uh, er, well here, this was available in 1611 and already in the
used book stores:

Rev 6:5-6 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And when hee had opened the thirde seale, I heard
the thirde beast say, Come and see:
Then I behelde, and loe, a blacke horse,
and he that sate on him, had balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the mids of the foure beastes say,
A measure of wheate for a penie,
and three measures of barly for a peny,
and oyle, and wine hurt thou not.

400 years later we would say:

Revelation 6:5 (NIV):
When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard
the third living creature say, "Come!"
I looked, and there before me was a black horse!
Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand.
6 Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying,
"A quart of wheat for a day's wages,
and three quarts of barley for a day's wages,
and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

It's no wonder you have to believe the falling away is the rapture, Ed. You keep 'correcting' all the verses that actually show a pre-trib rapture. These beasts are not cherubim. They are kings, thus they are 'beasts' just like the beasts in Daniels visions. The fact that they appear as resembling cherubim in Johns vision is irrelevant. This is symbolism. Notice that in their midst is a Lamb, with seven horns and seven eyes. Who is that Lamb?

Revelation 5:6
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

We know these are saints because of what they say.

Revelation 5:9-10
9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus did not die to redeem cherubim. He died to redeem man. These beasts are men. But wait, we can fix that too, can't we?

Revelation 5:9-10 (New International Version)

9And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."



So instead of saints being in heaven before the trib, praising the God that redeemed them, you have cherubim before the throne praising God that redeemed men. Not to worry, though, I'm sure the apostasy is still coming to sweep you away, Ed.

 

[Salamander]

So, you are saying it is wrong if one chooses to read the NKJV because the language is more modern, but if they use a KJV and look up the 'archaic' words in a dictionary it is okay?

Example:

Isa 8:21 KJV- And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]Bestead [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]Meaning: hard pressed; greatly distressed. This word is used only once in the King James Version, see: Isaiah 8:21. It is the translation of a Hebrew word meaning to oppress, or be in circumstances of hardship. (Web Bible Encyclopedia)[/FONT]


Isa 8:21 NKJV- They will pass through it hard pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward.

Ok, so you picked on one little word, which that word is understood precisely in context. Then you gave example of what the NKJV does that causes a little misunderstanding in the latter portion, "that they will be enraged". To curse some one is understood to be that person doing the cursing is "enraged", but the meaning is altered in the NKJV becuase first they fretted themsleves, then they cursed their king.

Thank you for pointing this out.:thumbsup:

 

[Salamander]

The whole point of the OP condemns the very Bible the poster says they only trust. You dont use a 1611 KJV--you use and upgraded version of the KJ. Because language changes does not mean updates changed the meaning. The whole purpose for the update is so the meaning remains the same.

Bro Tony

Exactly wrong. the updating to the present language loses definition in translation to the new word. Learn something about linguistics.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said the KJB is the ONLY Bible I ever trust.

I also said that the use of the Germane text was the ONLY available type for the printing press of that day, so it is no wonder the KJB was FIRST printed in the 1611 fashion.raying:

 

[Salamander]

Salamander:I was reading this post and it struck inme in, well, that sortof way!:laugh:
Since language does change, does that mean we should always trash the former meaning?

Well, maybe not trash it, per se, but we shouldn't keep using it when the majority of your audience doesn't understand it.

Why not, you have something against teaching the graces of Olde English?

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

We should use the language style our audience best understands. Whether used for good or evil, God has made all languages, and he continues to make new ones or cause/allow changes in existing ones.

Man continues to make new words and re-iterates words to make them into a language. You still seem to be against education here.

Thanks, David, for clearing that up. Does God also speak ebonics to substanciate the Ebonics Version?

If enough ebonix speakers, IN GOD'S OPINION, were unable to understand the "majority" everyday American English style, I trust God to give them His messages, even if it means making an accurate ebonics Bible.

The Ebonics Version is already out and I have yet to see the ebonics crowd advancing in the things of God as yet, excepting the good ol' Christians of the black persuasion that use things like "It be", etc.

Do you think English or Chinese will be the predominate language spoken by men in the near or far future?

I don't believe Chinese will be heavily-used that much outside the borders of the nations that now use it as their primary language. And there several dialects of Chinese, as there are of English, Spanish, etc.

If the Chinese have it their way, you will either speak their language or cease to exist

Would it not be best to understand the former defintion, in context, to render the topic discussion fruitful when teaching, preaching, or just personal studying, the Bible?

I believe that's often done right now, and often to the detriment of more than one sermon. A small example is when a preacher using the KJV comes to "Suffer little children". Seeing the look of puzzlement on some of his audience's faces, he'll back up & say, "Back when this bible version was written, 'suffer' meant 'allow'. "

Sorry, but I must live in the near dark ages becuase ever since i was a little child, I understood exactly what Jesus meant: the word "suffer" also means to go to the extremes to bring those children to Jesus, not just allow them to come, but to compel them to come.

Your limited view of the passage does more harm than you suggest.

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?:smilewinkgrin:

What's wrong with simply reading the Scriptures in our own language?

Wrong? I say it is because what you try to say isn't our language still is our language. The modern English doesn't have the full spectrum of understanding. The modern English waters down the view of the Author and bows to the demands of the illiterate.The Modern English is rooted in a passion to change the former things to meet the new criteria, when compassion should be the rule in getting across what the Living Word of God really does say.

The old cop-out saying the less educated need an easily understood version is, well, HOGWASH!:thumbsup:

 

[Salamander]

Do you accept the meaning of Lucifer that is given in the 1395 Wycliffe's Bible at Job 38:32?


The old 1300’s Wycliffe's Bible made from the Latin Vulgate may have been the first English Bible to introduce the Latin word "lucifer" into English at Isaiah 14:12. The 1395 edition of the Wycliffe Bible had “Lucifer” more than once since it was also used at Job 38:32: “Whether thou bringest forth Lucifer, that is, day star, in his time, and makest evening star to rise on the sons of earth.“


The 1534 Luther’s German Bible, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, has “morgen stern” [morning star] at Isaiah 14:12. In his lectures on Isaiah concerning this verse, Martin Luther indicated that the Hebrew word “denotes the morning star, called Lucifer and the son of Dawn” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 16, p. 140). According to this translation of his own comments, Luther’s rendering was likely the result of the influence of the Latin Vulgate or at the very least his rendering “morning star“ was intended to mean the same as “Lucifer.” Of the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible first used “Lucifer” at Isaiah 14:12. Coverdale is said to have translated primarily from the German with guidance from the Latin, and he is not known to have had a manuscript copy of the old Wycliffe‘s Bible. Is it possible that Coverdale’s rendering “Lucifer” was his translation for Luther’s German Bible’s “morgen stern?” Does this evidence suggest that the rendering “Lucifer” was first introduced into the English Bible from the direct or indirect influence of the Latin Vulgate?


At the end of Isaiah 14, the 1549 edition of Matthew’s Bible has some notes that include these words: “Lucifer, the morning star, which he calleth the child of the morning, because it appeared only in the morning.” The marginal note in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible for this word included the following: "for the morning star that goeth before the sun is called Lucifer." These two notes from two pre-1611 English Bibles that are on the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles provide clear credible evidence concerning the meaning of the word "Lucifer" in English in the 1500's. The 1657 English translation of the 1637 Dutch States-General Version and Dutch Annotations also indicated this meaning with its rendering "O morning-star" at Isaiah 14:12.

First tell me what you said, in your own words, then I'll understand how to answer.raying:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Wht did the KJV translators update the much older English versions with their more modern English? Wasn't the old Wyliffe Bilble English good enough?

For bi grace ye ben sauyd bi feith, and this not of you; for it is the yifte of God, not of werkis, that no man haue glorie. For we ben the makyng of hym, maad of nouyt in Crist Jhesu, in good werkis, whiche God hath ordeyned, that we go in tho werkis.
.

Why change the language of the Bible just because English language changed?

 

[Mexdeaf]

Wrong? I say it is because what you try to say isn't our language still is our language. The modern English doesn't have the full spectrum of understanding. The modern English waters down the view of the Author and bows to the demands of the illiterate.The Modern English is rooted in a passion to change the former things to meet the new criteria, when compassion should be the rule in getting across what the Living Word of God really does say.

The old cop-out saying the less educated need an easily understood version is, well, HOGWASH!:thumbsup:

As one who works with mostly illiterate people I find your remarks offensive.:tear:

One of my favorite verses in the Bible is Mark 12:37- David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

May God be graceful to you in your pompous ignorance. And please forgive my saying so.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Ok, so you picked on one little word, which that word is understood precisely in context. Then you gave example of what the NKJV does that causes a little misunderstanding in the latter portion, "that they will be enraged". To curse some one is understood to be that person doing the cursing is "enraged", but the meaning is altered in the NKJV becuase first they fretted themsleves, then they cursed their king.

Thank you for pointing this out.:thumbsup:

'Fret' (KJV) from the Hebrew qatsaph, kaw-tsaf' a primitive root; to crack off, i.e. (figuratively) burst out in rage:--(be) anger(-ry), displease, fret self, (provoke to) wrath (come), be wroth.

Is translated 'wroth', 'wrath', 'angry', 'displeased', 'angered', and 'provoked' in other places in the OT, so the NKJV is not altering the meaning at all.

 

[David Michael Harris]

I was reading this post and it struck inme in, well, that sortof way!:laugh:
Since language does change, does that mean we should always trash the former meaning?

Are we to stand for what thus saith the LORD, or should we bow to language changes that usually come from rhetoric and heathenistic lifestyles/ slang usage?

Thanks, David, for clearing that up. Does God also speak ebonics to substanciate the Ebonics Version?

Do you think English or Chinese will be the predominate language spoken by men in the near or far future?

Would it not be best to understand the former defintion, in context, to render the topic discussion fruitful when teaching, preaching, or just personal studying, the Bible?

I mean, everyone here always reverts back to the "Originals" for exact meaning, so what is so wrong with understanding the "archaic" words when we study the Bible?:smilewinkgrin:

Carry on.

Your going no-where matey.

The Gospel was always preached in the vernacular.

And so it should be today, the Elect hear it and believe...