1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

More dynamic equivalents in the KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by robycop3, Nov 11, 2004.

Top Posters
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many KJVOs often accuse MVs of using too many equivalents, while overlooking the myriad of such examples in the KJV.

    Nothing wrong with using them for better understanding between English and the ms languages. But according to the KJVO double standard, it's OK for the KJV to have done it, but NOT OK for any other English BV to have done so.

    Here are a few examples where the KJV modernizes some Hebrew musical instruments:

    "Dulcimer" was familiar to 17th C. England while"cuwmpownyah" was not. It's still uncertain what this Hebrew word really meant. They knew what a psaltery was(It resembles a zither), but not a "nebel", which also means a jar or container.

    "Cornet" was familiar, while "shofar" was not. Actually, the shofar is a valveless instrument made from a ram's horn, while the cornet is a valved, trumpet-like instrument made of brass.

    "Sackbut"(a medieval trombone) is NOT an accurate translation of the Hebrew "sabbaka", which was a stringed instrument, often called a trigon by the Greeks because of its triangular shape.

    Those English knew what an organ was, but not the Hebrew "uwgab", which was a flute, pan pipe, or something similar.

    Some KJVOs criticize MVs for simply reading "the band" in Daniel 3, but wasn't the KJV taking the same liberties by using the names of instruments that were modern in their day?

    Thing is, there's NOTHING wrong with using some dynamic equivalency for clarity where necessary. This is just another lame KJVO argument.
     
    #1 robycop3, Nov 11, 2004
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are also other places where the KJV could be said to have "dynamic equivalents."

    2 Sam. 16:16c where the words "God" and "save"
    are not found in the Hebrew, yet the KJV
    has "God save the king" in the text with the more
    literal rendering "let the king live" in the marginal note. At 1 Kings 1:31, where there is
    a similar expression in the Hebrew, the KJV
    has: "let my lord king David live forever."
    Thus, the KJV corrected the dynamic equivalents
    in some of the earlier English Bibles at 1 Kings
    1:31 [one example-- "God save my lord king David forever" in the Geneva Bible] while keeping the same equivalents at other verses such as 2 Sam. 16:16.
     
    #2 Logos1560, Nov 11, 2004
  3. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given that the issue is incredibly cut and dry, what is the purpose of even dialoguing with the KJVO's? Shouldn't they just be ignored and/or shouted down? If you can't find a shred of Biblical support after 50 years, why treat their belief with any more respect than the beliefs of the JW's or Mormons?
     
    #3 manchester, Nov 11, 2004
  4. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    To your first question; I agree. Why the continued apparent hatred and maliciousness? I do not support they who on the KJVo side who are equally hateful and malicious, however, their attitudes do not justify your's either.

    As to the second question;
    Ignored? Maybe. Shouted down? How very unchristian.

    As to the third question;
    Although it appears you are espousing disrespect, truly you do not mean being disrespectful do you? Is this the way Paul taught you to behave? As to the comparison to JW's or Mormons? The difference here is on the one hand you are dealing with fellow believers in the same Saviour; on the other hand, clearly you are not.

    Just some thoughts to ponder.

    In His service;
    Jim
     
    #4 av1611jim, Nov 11, 2004
  5. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, KJVOs are different from JWs and Mormons, but all share an attack on what most consider to be God's Word.
     
    #5 manchester, Nov 11, 2004
  6. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet you also share in that attack. We stand for one Book.
    You say that the one Book must be "correctly translated" and proceed to try to show us how the translators of the KJV have erred. How is this different from the JW or LDS position?

    In His service;
    Jim
     
    #6 av1611jim, Nov 11, 2004
  7. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't you see the obvious contradiction?

    In His service;
    Jim
     
    #7 av1611jim, Nov 11, 2004
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,213
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV-only view view does not stand correctly for one Book. The KJV-only view undermines and harms the very foundation that the KJV depends upon--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The KJV-only view also undermines and harms the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision. You cannot cut one branch [a translation] off the tree and off from its roots [or foundation] (John 15:5-6) without harming it. Was the KJV a revision of earlier English translations that were or were not the word of God in the same sense that the KJV [also a translation] is? If the tree or root of all the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision is holy, all the branches [translations] on that tree must also be holy (Rom. 11:16). The derived authority of any translation including the KJV depends on the greater authority of its underlying texts of which it is a translation. A translation is not independent and underived. To attempt to redefine the Scriptures by limiting them to only the interpretations of Church of England scholars in 1611 is clearly wrong.
     
    #8 Logos1560, Nov 12, 2004
  9. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3;
    -------------------------------------------------
    Thing is, there's NOTHING wrong with using some dynamic equivalency for clarity where necessary. This is just another lame KJVO argument.
    --------------------------------------------------

    The problem is that you make a conclusion that is not based on fact.
    As I understand the argument;
    KJVo would not dismiss DE altogether, but rather dismiss DE in making it the exclusive method for translation of the entire Bible.

    You make the correct assessment that the KJVo argument is against DE. But they do not discount it altogether.

    You correctly state that there is nothing wrong with DE where appropriate. To this, I would agree. I disagree with the gigantic leap to say this is yet another failure(lame) of the KJVo arguement.

    In His service;
    Jim
     
    #9 av1611jim, Nov 12, 2004
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dynamic equivalence? God forbid!

    Yet that IS the attack on modern versions, right?

    The AV, NKJV, NASB do employ as the major method a "formal equivalence" and limit the dynamic. I personally feel that is more accurate.
     
    #10 Dr. Bob, Nov 12, 2004
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV1611Jim:You correctly state that there is nothing wrong with DE where appropriate. To this, I would agree. I disagree with the gigantic leap to say this is yet another failure(lame) of the KJVo arguement.

    I beg to disagree with your disagreement. A well-known KJVO argument is over Isaiah 14:12, where the KJV renders the Hebrew 'heylal' as "Lucifer" while most MVs read "morning star". "Lucifer" is CLEARLY a use of DE while "morning star" is more literal. I believe you know the rocket-scientists among th KJVOs say this is substituting CHRIST for the devil. This is among their greatest absurdities, ranking in idiocy with "The NIV denies the Deity of Christ at Luke 2:43 by calling Joseph Jesus' father."


    There are many other examples of KJVO erudition where they DEFEND DE in the KJV while attacking it in other versions. I'm sure you've read some posts by another member who doesn't post here too often any more(because he hates to lose. He's found out there are many here who actually examine his assertions for veracity.) who likes to sit down with a box full of English Bibles and compare them among themselves, with the KJV as his "standard". (He can't tell us where his AUTHORITY to make the KJV his standard comes from.)

    That's why I say the DE thingy is just another lame KJVO attempt to justify their myth. They operate this thingy, as they do many others, from a DOUBLE STANDARD, that is, it's OK for the KJV to use DE, but not any other version. Their "wisdom" is justified of its children.
     
    #11 robycop3, Nov 12, 2004
  12. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    posted November 12, 2004 12:07 AM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by av1611jim:
    We stand for one Book.

    Jim
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The KJV-only view view does not stand correctly for one Book. The KJV-only view undermines and harms the very foundation that the KJV depends upon--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The KJV-only view also undermines and harms the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision. You cannot cut one branch [a translation] off the tree and off from its roots [or foundation] (John 15:5-6) without harming it. Was the KJV a revision of earlier English translations that were or were not the word of God in the same sense that the KJV [also a translation] is? If the tree or root of all the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision is holy, all the branches [translations] on that tree must also be holy (Rom. 11:16). The derived authority of any translation including the KJV depends on the greater authority of its underlying texts of which it is a translation. A translation is not independent and underived. To attempt to redefine the Scriptures by limiting them to only the interpretations of Church of England scholars in 1611 is clearly wrong.
    -----------------------------------------
    How did that answer this?
    -----------------------------------------
    Yet you also share in that attack. We stand for one Book.
    You say that the one Book must be "correctly translated" and proceed to try to show us how the translators of the KJV have erred. How is this different from the JW or LDS position?
    (bold added)

    In His service;
    Jim
     
    #12 av1611jim, Nov 14, 2004
  13. stevec

    stevec New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, Dr. Bob. If a word is foreign to our culture or untranslatable I would rather have the original-language word transliterated in the text with a footnote telling me "1 cubit = 18 inches" or "an unknown animal". I find this far superior to mythical animals like unicorns.
     
    #13 stevec, Nov 14, 2004
  14. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In case you didn't know it Jim this phrase "God forbid" and another "Would to God" are clearly unauthorized insertions into the English text of the King James Bible in that the words are simply not in the original language text (the phrase is "may it not be") but was a colloquialism of the 17th century which the translators were fond of using (something of the order of the modern "oh my gosh!").

    I'm not sure what the point of you question is. We are Baptists not JWs or Mormons. Where we see error we attempt to correct it. We care not if these cults say similar things.

    As the old saying goes even a broken/stopped watch is correct twice a day.

    The Church of England has its heresies, one of which is their own peculiar brand of baptismal regeneration. Officially the Church of England teaches that babies can be baptised and upon this baptism they are "grafted" into the Church, the Body of Christ.

    This they inherited from their parent, the Church of Rome.

    I believe the KJV translators teaching of pedo-baptism and their double-speak view of baptismal regeneration affected their mistranslation of:

    KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

    The Greek preposition en is not instrumental but locative.
    This is made perfectly clear by the meaning of the transliterated word baptismo which is to dip. The preposition "in" (which is the Greek word not "with") fits grammatically "with" does not.

    and should be :

    1901 ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

    Strangely enough the Douay-Rheims has this verse translated correctly probably because of their Latin Vulgate Only position (in 1582) which says: ego quidem vos baptizo in aqua and while the Church of England was under the rule of the Church of Rome (on again/off again) they indeed immersed the babies in the water.

    "with water" opens the proverbial pandora's box to allow and accomodate any and every mode of baptism, promotes pedo-baptism and supports their brand of baptismal regeneration.

    Yes, it is true that many MVs translate this verse using the word "with" because they, as the Church of England, have to accomodate the doctrine of infant baptism of the mainline Protestant churches IMO.

    All translations have their human flaws.

    HankD
     
    #14 HankD, Nov 14, 2004
  15. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    That difference alone is one of the reasons for different translations. Some would rather not have the word transliterated.
     
    #15 gb93433, Nov 14, 2004
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Manchester:Given that the issue is incredibly cut and dry, what is the purpose of even dialoguing with the KJVO's?

    Because as Christians we have a D-U-T-Y to expose false doctrines.

    Shouldn't they just be ignored and/or shouted down?

    Absolutely not, on either count. Ignoring is one of THEIR tactics, whis says, "I am clueless"(Take note of a certain distaff member here, who refuses to answer legitimate questions), while "shouting down" is also one of THEIR tactics upon occasion and is not a very Christian thing to do, especially within a nation which guarantees EVERYONE the right to express his/her opinion, popular or not.

    If you can't find a shred of Biblical support after 50 years, why treat their belief with any more respect than the beliefs of the JW's or Mormons?

    because, by and large, most KJVOs are CHRISTIANS, while LDS & JW are NOT. WE should continue to show our fellow Christians the error of their ways as we see them...because WE aren't perfect either, and maybe THEY might return the favor if they see US in some error. We should both correct and be ready to be corrected.
     
    #16 robycop3, Nov 14, 2004
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AV1611Jim:You correctly state that there is nothing wrong with DE where appropriate. To this, I would agree. I disagree with the gigantic leap to say this is yet another failure(lame) of the KJVo arguement.

    But a quick check of the various message boards will show you it's the KJVOs which generally go after the use of DE.We counter, of course, with, "What about 'God forbid' in sundry places in the KJV?"

    It's yet another "Casey At The Bat" for the KJVOs.
     
    #17 robycop3, Nov 14, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...