More dynamic equivalence in the KJV

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by michelle:
And this issue is dealing with the scriptures themselves, trying to prove we do not have the preserved words of God in our language.

That isn't the issue here.
Obviously you need to be straightened
in your bowels.

In fact, the Words of God are preserved
in English by the use of dynamic
equivalence. The KJV is a prime example
of the use of dynamic equivalence to
preserved the written words of God in
English. In fact, the KJV that is used
most in the states today, the KJV1769
is a Modern Version. Modern Versions
I define to be those version translated after
the KJV1611. You have no working definition
of MVs that could be used to check each
Bible one-by-one to see if they are MVs or not.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
God has preserved His Words for us today.
He has done it in the Modern Versions (MVs)
translated from the Hort/Westcott Greek
soruces; He has done it in the Modern Versions
(MVs) translated from the Textus Receptus (TR);
He has done it according to His promise
in the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------

You are correct in everything above with the exception of this:

"He has done it in the Modern Versions (MVs)
translated from the Hort/Westcott Greek
soruces;"


Evidence is that those are corrupt sources, as is evidenced God has not preserved those corruptions within the generations of bible believing christians. It is also evidenced that those modern versions of today that claim they have translated from the TR, in fact have referred to and relied upon these corrupt sources, therefore altering the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ed Edwards]

Michelle: "It is also evidenced that those modern versions of today that claim they have translated from the TR, in fact have referred to and relied upon these corrupt sources, therefore altering the truth"

Your contention is unproved and false.
There are in fact, MVs like the KJV1769 that are based
on the TR.
Your failure to discriminate between versions that are based
on the TR and NOT based on the Westcott/Hort work shows your
inability to be taken serious on the matter of translations.

Michelle: "Evidence is that those are corrupt sources, as is evidenced God has not preserved those corruptions within the generations of bible believing christians."

sorry Sister M., you loose. There are more years
between Westcott/Hort and now
thank between the KJV1769 and Westcott/Hort.
In fact, the Hestcott/HOrt source has more years of use
than the KJV1769. Learn some arithemetic.

Here is some arithemetic:

1881 minus 1769 equals 112
2004 minus 1881 equals 123

In addition to the years,
the Christian population 1881 to 2004
was six times that from 1769 to 1881.
So six times as many Christians were
exposed to the Hort/Westcott source xlations
as to the TR xlations.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
sorry Sister M., you loose. There are more years
between Westcott/Hort and now
thank between the KJV1769 and Westcott/Hort.
In fact, the Hestcott/HOrt source has more years of use
than the KJV1769. Learn some arithemetic
--------------------------------------------------

I am not on here to win. I am on here to share the truth. You are incorrect. The W/H text based bibles have not been in use within the bible believing churches. It has been the KJB. W/H is a new thing, and a new Bible, not known within the believing churches until recently. Learn your church history Ed.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Ed Edwards]

The KJB is used within the bible believing churches.
The Bible Believing Churches are those that
use the KJB.

This is a very tight circle of logic


\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[natters]

2 Sam 17:5 - KJV has "what he saith", Hebrew has "what is in his mouth"

 

[Trotter]

michelle wrote:
I am on here to share the truth.

You wouldn't know it if it bit you on the behind.

Michelle, many, many, many people have tried to discuss with you the truth, but you will have none of it. Instead, you cling to your man-made delusion of King James Version Onlyism.

The KJV is a fine translation of its time, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It is not perfect. Oh, I expect you'll come back with more of your self-righetous blather, accusing me and others of attacking the word of God, or how we hold to lies or the like. Or you will pick a single statement to try to argue. Fine, but we all see how silly you sound.

The King James uses dynamic equivalence, period. And contrary to what you fantasize, dynamic equivalence is dynamic equivalence no matter what the century is.

That the King James translators used dynamic equivalence is not a big deal to me, nor is it a big deal to many others on this Board. But, to a KJVO (like yourself), it is a major issue. But, ya know, that is ya'lls problem since it flies in the face of ya'lls man-made falacy.

"King James Version Onlyism"- the cancer of Christianity.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Trotter]

Ed wrote:
This is a very tight circle of logic [Frown]

Don't you mean 'illogic', Ed?

In Christ,
Trotter

Praise Iesus!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by natters:
2 Sam 17:5 - KJV has "what he saith", Hebrew has "what is in his mouth"

Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!

Thank you for refreshing my bowels in
the Lord today! May God be liberal
today with blessing toward you,
your family, and your ministy. Amen.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[GrannyGumbo]

Fine, but we all see how silly you sound.

'We all' surely includes me, and I have not found michelle silly; as a matter of fact, she is very serious and wise. But I do find this very insulting: "King James Version Onlyism"- the cancer of Christianity.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Trotter: "The King James uses dynamic equivalence,
period. And contrary to what you fantasize, dynamic
equivalence is dynamic equivalence no matter what the century is."

Trotter: "That the King James translators used dynamic equivalence
is not a big deal to me, nor is it a big deal to many
others on this Board. But, to a KJVO (like yourself),
it is a major issue. But, ya know, that is ya'lls
problem since it flies in the face of ya'lls man-made falacy."

Amen, Brother Trotter -- Preach it!

Thank you for refreshing my bowels in
the Lord today! May God be liberal
today with blessing toward you,
your family, and your ministy. Amen.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Trotter: Fine, but we all see how silly you sound.

'We all' surely includes me, and I have not found michelle silly; as a matter of fact, she is very serious and wise.

Bad move, Sister GrannyGumbo. You loose.
If you are trying to be truthful, you loose anyway.

"Silly" is a classic English term that has changed radically.
"Silly" should be the book cover word for Brother Natters'
dynamic equivalence book.
In 1611 it was a good term, in 1828 a bad term,
and is now fairly neutral. So, in which time frame
does Trotter construe he speaks of Michelle?
In which time frame does Michelle construe that Trotter
speaks of her. In which time frame does GrannyGumbo construe
that Trotter speaks of Michelle?

Silly1611 -- good, blessed innocent

silly1828 -- Weak in intellect; foolish; witless;
destitute of ordinary strength of mind; simple;

silly2004 -- Lacking seriousness or responsibleness; frivolous

"Silly" is one of those English terms that has changed meaning.

"silly" appears in the KJV1769 3 times
"silly" appears in the HCSB twice (only once
in the same verse as in the KJV1769)

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
"King James Version Onlyism"- the cancer of Christianity.

--------------------------------------------------

Nice to see you parrot your mentors phrases and false labels, and those same people to whom you were baited with thier lies, hook, line and sinker - and all for your money and at the expense of simple faith. You have been, and are very much deceived regarding this issue.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
"Silly" is a classic English term that has changed radically.
"Silly" should be the book cover word for Brother Natters'
dynamic equivalence book.
In 1611 it was a good term, in 1828 a bad term,
and is now fairly neutral. So, in which time frame
does Trotter construe he speaks of Michelle?
In which time frame does Michelle construe that Trotter
speaks of her. In which time frame does GrannyGumbo construe
that Trotter speaks of Michelle?
--------------------------------------------------

Stop assulting Sister Granny Gumbo with these vain and nitpicky things. It is very unchristian of you, and void of edification. Not to mention, she, nor I do not come here to win anything. We come here to share the truth. You either believe the truth or not. But remember this, in relation to your above quote:

1 Timothy 6

1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6. But godliness with contentment is great gain.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
"Silly" is a classic English term that has changed radically.
"Silly" should be the book cover word for Brother Natters'
dynamic equivalence book.
In 1611 it was a good term, in 1828 a bad term,
and is now fairly neutral. So, in which time frame
does Trotter construe he speaks of Michelle?
In which time frame does Michelle construe that Trotter
speaks of her. In which time frame does GrannyGumbo construe
that Trotter speaks of Michelle?
--------------------------------------------------

Stop assulting Sister Granny Gumbo with these vain and nitpicky things. It is very unchristian of you, and void of edification. Not to mention, she, nor I do not come here to win anything. We come here to share the truth. You either believe the truth or not. But remember this, in relation to your above quote:

1 Timothy 6

1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
6. But godliness with contentment is great gain.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Mi, you oughtta consider starting a cult, your mentality of oneupmanship, and attitude that you and a very few are the only ones w/ the Truth reeks of cultic thinking: Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect

 

[Ed Edwards]

Trotter said that Michelle was:
Silly1611 -- good, blessed innocent

GrannyGumbo said that Michelle was:
silly1828 -- Weak in intellect; foolish; witless

And who is heavy here?
Is Trotter the heavy for being kind?
Is GrannyGumbo the heavy for being unkind?
Is Michelle the heavy for being dense?
Is Ed the heavy for reading the dictionaries
out loud?

English language words change values.
This is probably true all the more so as the time
of the pretribulation rapture approaches.

I still testify that ALL ENGLISH VERSIONS are
the written word of God and contain the written
word of God.
I still testify that EACH ENGLISH VERSIONS is
the written word of God and contains the written
word of God.
BTW, this last statement includes all three of the
King James Versions that are commonly for sale in
the USofA.

May our Lord and Savior,
Messiah Iesus, be praised! Amen!

[ August 15, 2004, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Orvie:
Mi, you oughtta consider starting a cult, your mentality of oneupmanship, and attitude that you and a very few are the only ones w/ the Truth reeks of cultic thinking: Nehushtan Pickled Version Sect

Amen, Brother Orvie -- Preach it!

Thank you for refreshing my bowels in
the Lord today! May God be liberal
today with blessing toward you,
your family, and your ministy. Amen.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by natters:
Here's some more, from random pages:

Isaiah 3:17 - KJV has "discover", Hebrew has "make naked"

Isaiah 3:20 - KJV has "tablets", Hebrew has "houses of the soul"

Isaiah 3:25 - KJV has "mighty", Hebrew has "might"

Isaiah 4:1 - KJV has "let us be called by thy name", Hebrew has "let thy name be called upon us"

Isaiah 4:2 - KJV has "beautiful and glorious" and "for them that are escaped of Israel", Hebrew has "beauty and glory" and "for the escaping of Israel".

Isaiah 4:5 - KJV has "a defence", Hebrew has "a covering"

Isaiah 5:1 - KJV has "a very fruitful hill", Hebrew has "the horn of the son of oil"

Isaiah 5:5 - KJV has "trodden down", Hebrew has "for a treading"

Isaiah 5:7 - KJV has "his pleasant plant" and "oppression", Hebrew has "plant of his pleasures" and "a scab".

Isaiah 5:9 - KJV has "Of a truth", Hebrew has "If not"

Isaiah 5:13 - KJV has "their honorable men are famished", Hebrew has "their glory are men of famine"

Isaiah 5:20 - KJV has "that call evil good", Hebrew has "that say concerning evil, it is good"

Isaiah 5:21 - KJV has "prudent in their own sight", Hebrew has "prudent before their face"

Isaiah 5:24 - KJV has "fire", Hebrew has "tongue of fire"

Here's a chapter that's not so random, but should be interesting:

Psalm 23:2 - KJV has "green pastures" and "still waters", Hebrew has "pastures of tender grass" and "waters of quietness"

Psalm 23:5 - KJV has "anointest my head", Hebrew has "makest fat my head"

Psalm23:6 - KJV has "for ever", Hebrew has "to length of days"

You still refuse to answer my question about the Hebrew text. I am waiting for you......

 

[Ed Edwards]

Askjo:
Whould it not make more sense to repeat
the question from another topic than to repeat a lengthy post from this topic?
Frankly, I can find his post in this topic
but cannot find your question.
I don't need two copies of his post
and no copies of your question.

Thank you in advance for sharing your
question in this topic.

\O/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God \O/

 

[natters]

Askjo said "You still refuse to answer my question about the Hebrew text. I am waiting for you......"

I have repeatedly explained. Where I said "Hebrew has...", I am simply typing in what the translators of the KJV said the Hebrew has. Maybe you think they are liars?