Our Lord is terrible

In the first place, I think we have been asking the wrong questions. We have been focusing on what the world around us understands. I think this is wrongheaded. Doesn't God Himself via Paul tell us that the natural man cannot understand the things of God? Therefore we ought to be focusing on getting folks saved, THEN, communicate to them the Scriptures as they are. Again, I must remind you fellers of this:
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

To read something "distinctly" means to present something in a clear manner. To "give the sense" obviously means to explain it. To "cause....to understand" should be obvious.
If it was neccessary for the priests to explain God's word, then why are WE having such a hard time with this concept? Remember, we are NOT talking about a translation here. This was in the original language of the OT. Yet, the priests STILL had to explain it.

I think many of you guys are missing this point, (which I brought to the discussion a few pages back). I think this whole issue of whether or not 'terrible' is right or is 'awesome' a better word misses the mark. And it diverts us from doing our duty to those who would hear us.

The OP asked about an 8yr old kid. Perhaps we ought to take our cue from the priests of God and 'give the sense' of the word to this kid so he can understand that YES God is terrible AND at the same time He is awesome AND at the same time He is loving, just, merciful, righteous, holy, fearful, powerful, etc. I think it is foolish to assume an 8yr old kid can grasp the totality of the terribleness of God unless we "give the sense". I do NOT think God's word ought to be dumbed down to an 8yr olds understanding in every case. The gospel? Yes!!!!! By all means make it as simple as possible, but the attributes of God? NO!!! They just are NOT that simple!!!

 

Your reasoning is terrible.

 

Redefining of words is not a big deal?

You have no evidence for your claim that all translations of the Bible except the KJV are based on Catholic manuscripts. You are also incorrect on the NKJV, but that is a topic for another thread.

By whose definition? What if I think the 14th century English is also modern English.

 

I think it is foolish to assume an 8yr old kid can grasp the totality of the ferdfulness of God unless we "give the sense". I do NOT think God's word ought to be dumbed down to an 8yr olds understanding in every case. The gospel? Yes!!!!! By all means make it as simple as possible, but the attributes of God? NO!!! They just are NOT that simple!!!

Let us stand for the ferdfulness of God and make sure that everyone can understand it.

 

Good argument and I love that Nehemiah passage.

 

It's a huge deal. We should stop doing it.

They are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaticus. Manuscripts found in the Vatican and Catholic monasteries are Catholic manuscripts.

Well then, you'd be redefining another word or phrase. I don't know who defined them but it's commonly accepted that there was a period of Old English, Middle English and Modern English. The English of the 14th century, with folks like Chaucer, was considered to be middle English.

 

Strictly speaking, 17th Century English and today's English is all Modern English, which is a point I used to make. However, as someone else pointed out, people often refer to 17th century English as Early Modern English in order to communicate the fact that it isn't how we speak today. I thought that was a good call, so I have been calling it Early Modern English since then.

Edited to be more specific about 17th Century and today's English. 14th Century English is Middle English. I wasn't paying attention to the quote I used.

.

 

Fair point, but we do not speak Early Modern English anymore so why must our Bible be in that language?

And, BTW, the NKJV did not use your supposed "Catholic" manuscripts - but lets not get oof track. We are supposed to be discussing the use of words like terrible.

 

When there is another English Bible that is based off of the TR and bears the fruit of the Authorized Version, then perhaps it will be unseated. However, I do not expect that God will do that, as He already gave us His Word in the English language.

 

Nice job of 'nip n tuck' but you completely missed the point of my post. OR you ignored it in order to be cute or something. Either way, the end result is that you did not contribute anything of substance.

 

This is where I misss the point. Whenever the same logic used today is applied to the 17th century it is not longer logical or applicable.

I don't think the ferdfulness of God should be dumbed down to another word.


One thing we can see is that it is impossible for any translator to properly describe the ferdfulness/terribleness/awesomeness/fearsomeness of God. It is beyond our ken.

 

I don't disagree. This is why you let God describe how He is "terrible" in His Word and you abide by his instruction to study. 55 times the word "terrible" or variation thereof occurs in the Holy Bible. If one studies each of those instances and they are led by the Holy Ghost, I suspect they are going to get a pretty good idea of what "terrible" means.

 

The problem is that as much as I like that word, there is nothing magic in the choice of words, any more more than there was for "ferdful". I really like the choice of the word ferdful. Knowing what little I do about late middle English it looks like we would spell it "fearedful" today. Nice word packed with meaning.

 

Do you mean 'awful (awe full)' or 'awesome'?

 

OK. Give a definition of 'ferdful' from ANY dictionary. Barring your ability to do so, your 'logic' breaks down at that point. 'Terrible' is still a common word. So is fearful, awesome, fearsome. Yet, do you have a definition of 'ferdful'? How about moreutid? Or schappli ?

You see? While the English of 17th century England is recognizable, the English of Wycliffe is NOT. Therefore, I think your 'ferdful' hobby horse in this thread is a red herring or strawman or whatever logical fallacy applies. (Obviously I am not a logic-tician, yet I recognize a smoke screen when I see it.)

 

It is clear that you are not a logic-tician.

You contend that English has degenerated since 1611 and that we should stick to 1611 meanings. I only go back another 220 years for my choice of the proper word. As much as I like the word "terrible" here is does not mean what it once did for the vast majority of English speakers. It means as much to them in that sense as "ferdful" does to you and me.

I wish it was different. I think "terrible" is a tremendous translation - but people are not going to get it. Lets use language people can understand.

 

Rufus_1611: //When there is another English Bible
that is based off of the TR and bears the fruit
of the Authorized Version, then perhaps it will be unseated.//

Amen, Brother Rufus_1611 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

For ten years I used the TR
based nKJV = New King James Version,
to lead some 8 persons to a saving knowledge of
my Messiah Jesus. I did that while working full time as
an engineer and part time as a soul winner.

I use the TR based HCSB = Christian Standard Bible
(Holman, 2003) since 2001 to lead some 11 persons
(including their Sunday School Teacher /me/) age
46 to 69 to become better servants of God.
Two of them got so good they got retired
and collected their heavenly Bible Study retirement:
Brother Keer, the Radio-Time Salesman
/he paid for the Radio-Time for the church's sermon
for years and years/ and Sargent Brother Reynolds, the
National Guard tent repairperson.

P.S. 55 years ago in April 1952 I was saved from
the explained-to-me KJV1769 Edition Bible.
I never saw a KJV1611 Edition until 1977
(it was in Gothic print, which is much harder
to read than the Roman founts available today).

 

"Soul winners worldwide give out Chick tracts because people who read them get saved" - (Source: http://www.chick.com/testimonies.asp)​

Chick tracts do not bear the fruit of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

 

I still think you miss the point of my contention, Roger.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

It is our duty to explain what Scripture says.....NOT redefine it or retranslate. I will now bow out of this one. At this point, I think you are arguing against Scripture.

 

Thats a harsh judgement, and one I doubt you would hold the KJV translators to since they as well retranslated previous translations.

Why should we not explain what Scripture says when it says ferdful instead of explaining terrible?

I just can't see why it was acceptable to retranslate words in 1611 and not in 2007.