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!

Should Scripture be rendered in a 'separate' language?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by franklinmonroe, Jul 31, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Keith, perhaps Salamander's comment refelects this assertion made in the AVP document --
    Why must God use “separate,” “wholesome,” and “undefiled” words? Why can’t he use ‘common everyday language’? Just as pollution and pollen are inhaled with every breath of good air, so the words the world uses go into the mind, along with all of the filth surrounding them. They are stored in the memory. When that word is read again, the file containing that word pops to the forefront of the mind -- hand in hand with all the pollution it has been partnered with. (page 5 of AVP sample chapter)​
    They attempt prove this point by using results from word association experiments (the work of linguist scholars). They give several examples from the Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus, available online. This is where the scientist suggests a word and the subject spontaneously blurts the first thing that comes into their mind.

    My results were slightly different than the ones published in the AVP document, which I attribute to our language changing even since its release (the E.A.T. must update the database periodically). I think the total samplings are too small, making the differences between answers statistcally insignificant, and almost half of all answers given were unique to just one individual.

    The first example given in the AVP document is that the KJV word "charity" is clearly better for scripture than the word "love" employed by many modern versions because of the associated results of contemporary readers. The top seven associated words I got for "charity" were --
    HOME (12 responses), MONEY (8), SWEET (6), WALK (6), APPEAL (5), LOVE (5), HELP (4) {there were 94 answers, 39 unique}​
    There are connections between most of the these terms (a modern "charity walk" to raise funds, etc.), although I don't understand them all. The AVP writer postulates that these are all positive responses (they are "not foolish and sinful ideas").

    The word "love" stimulated the following top seven responses --
    HATE (32), SEX (9), GIRL (5), LIFE (3), MARRIAGE (3), WAR (2), AFFECTION (1) {97 total, 49 unique answers}​
    Again, the correspondance between these terms is mostly obvious ("Love & Marriage" being a song title, etc.). The AVP source implies that these negative free associations proves that "charity" is the superior choice for scripture. Several more examples are given over the next few pages. But the absurdity of the entire argument is that these words have NO CONTEXT. Context gives words their meaning. The results of free association is irrelevent as applied to reading for comprehension.
     
    #21 franklinmonroe, Aug 2, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2007
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Franklin Monroe,

    I went to the AV Publications website to search for this document, and there is too much to wade through. Could you please point me to which document it is so I might have the pleasure of reading it for myself if indeed it is available on line.

    Thanks.
     
  3. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Explains the expectant failure of the all-time Emmy Award winning "The Gong Show"

    Gimme a break ( pun intended)
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spelling changes do not warrant your insinuation. If you want to equate them with complete word changes and then compare those to absolute definition discrepencies, that is your folly.
     
  5. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can answer you for myself.

    You demand of the word of God to meet the current language distinctions to accomodate men. You cannot accomplish that task without regard to the common language now present. It is slowly but surely becoming the common language incorporating the use of vulgarity in everyday exchanges in communication.

    I would hope you will see the folly of your demands.

    The KJB is often "faulted" for its incorporation of the words of the commonfolk. But then in return it is awarded for so doing. Then in adverse this is made into some sort of "poof-proof" as if to substanciate a modern prose.
     
  6. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong, again, Salamander! As always, you're swinging and missing. I demand nothing of the word of God. It's just the opposite - the word of God demands things of us.
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have repeatedly attempted to validate new versions by your ideal of meeting the current langauge use of the typical man, that is demanding the word to fit your ideal.

    I interjected that to meet your ideal you would have to incorporate the current vulgarity of the language to meet that demand.

    It seems you agree that these words considerd vulgar shouldn't be included in the text: that is ultimately making a separate language for the word of God.

    The word of God does demand that we abstain from all appearances of evil. I would have to include the idea processes by the influx of modern terminology in its suggestive immoral content as also being evil.

    Define "fornication" and you only come up with one coherent definition.

    Define "immorality" and you have to deal with a plethora of definitions to be certain of the meaning, thus the KJB remains precise while most modern versions continue to be vague by comparison.

    I have never objected to a contextually accurate commentary on the Bible, but I will never attribute any commentary as the word of God.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    As promised in the OP, the document "which I can name later" --

    http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/IAOTW/sample.pdf

    It is a PDF preview of Chapter 5 from Riplinger's book entitled In Awe of Thy Word. I did not name it in the OP because I was hoping to get unbias responses. The initial quote of Archbishop Trench was actually lifted (by Riplinger) from another source.
     
    #28 franklinmonroe, Aug 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2007
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    (the OP question is: should Scripture be rendered in a "special" (or "separate") language, not common everyday English? Few have answered.)

    Another quote from the sample document (italics hers) --
    New bibles are all done under the premise that God wants us to have a bible that reads like the morning newspaper. He had an easy reading Bible in the Bishops’ Bible (and the Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bibles) which preceded the KJV. God permanently replaced the old simple Bishops’ Bible to give the English speaking world a Bible that is memorizable and melodic, aids missionaries in bridging the language gap, transparently and precisely reveals the Greek and Hebrew texts, and most importantly, whose vocabulary clearly distinguishes it from the voice of man. (on page 15 of PDF)​
    It is true, and what many folks don't realize, that the KJV actually took a linguistic step backwards to employ Elizabethan-style English, and not strictly the Jacobean vernacular.

    Is it also true that God eternally ordained this language as the only "separated" text for the Scriptures while rejecting the Bishop's, Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bibles? Point-by-point the Elizabethan English of the KJV:
    1) is memorizable and melodic?
    2) aids missionaries in bridging the language gap?
    3) transparently and precisely reveals the Greek and Hebrew texts?
    4) has vocabulary clearly distinguishing it from "the voice of man"?​
     
    #29 franklinmonroe, Aug 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2007
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sal, you didn't even TOUCH my question! I asked WHO causes/allowed all these changes... man, or GOD?
     
    #30 robycop3, Aug 3, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 3, 2007
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, God is Sovereign, learn that.
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Amen! God sovereign and He has sovereignly allowed us the have the Bible in 21st century English as well at 17th century English!
     
  13. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    You know what - I should not have posted that, we are back on the same old merry-go-round.

    Thread closed
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...