Sound Words

Who is to say when that happened? Perhaps English has not yet peaked and the "sound words" as you define them have not even been sounded yet. Who is the arbiter of when "sound words" are "sound"? God didn't tell us when, so the best we can do is an educated guess.

 

Thank you Brother Deacon.

The words came out of my head and
are original. The meaning is NOT original
but come from God's Inerrant Written Word. Amen.

 

there is no authority. language changes...

 

Sure there is an authority!

"Calling Language Cop! Come in, Language Cop!!" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Exactly - language changes. I still don't have an answer as to when we determine sound words as sound. Perhaps God's meaning for "gay" is the current usage. Maybe He just recently gave it as such. Who can decide?

 

The word 'gay' appears in the KJV1611 Edition only one place :

James 2:2-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
For if there come vnto your assembly
a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,
and there come in also a poore man, in vile raiment:
3 And yee haue respect to him that weareth
the gay clothing, and say vnto him,
Sit thou here in a good place: and say to the poore,
Stand thou there, or sit here vnder my footstoole:
4 Are yee not then partiall in your selues,
and are become iudges of euill thoughts?

According to Strong's the Greek word translated
'gay' in this one usage means:

Strong's:

G2986
λαμπρός
lampros
lam-pros'
From the same as G2985; radiant;
by analogy limpid; figuratively magnificent
or sumptuous (in appearance): - bright,
clear, gay, goodly, gorgeous, white.

Anyway, that is quite different from the
Webster's 1828 meaning:

GAY, a.
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome.
It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.
So the 'gay' discussion is moot.

My 1978 dictionary doesn't have the 1611 definition
of 'gay' but does have the 1828 definition & the
homosexual slang definition.

 

Okay, who is going to determine which definition of "gay" is God's definition?

 

In the one usage in the KJV1611 Edition,
the 'gay clothing' is contrasted with the 'vile raiment'.

'Gay' obviously modified 'clothing'.
Is there a special 'gay boy' garb?

(space inserted to enhanse readability)

 

If the "Olde" and "old" English are intended as references to the language style of the A.V. of 1611, it is improper. Technically, "modern" English began in usage about 1500 AD/CE. Wycliffe wrote in "old" English; Tyndale did not.

 

you can remove the "old" or "olde" from my post and get the point

 

γη - Strongs Greek No: 1093
Transliterated: ge; Pronounced: ghay

The AV translates it as “earth” 188 times, “land” 42 times, “ground” 18 times, “country” twice, “world” once, and “earthly + 1537 + 3588” once.

Rob :thumbs:

 

My response is based upon the assumption that the "we" (in "...why should we change...") refers to Christians, and that "they" (in "...when they change...") refers to non-Christian society.

I regret that the word "gay" has been hijacked and misapplied by the activists and the mass media. Nonetheless, "we" did not cause the problem; I seem to recall every attempt was made by orthodox influences and conservatives at the time to discourage the adoption of the word "gay" into the homosexual lexicon.

Ever read 1984? No doubt, a time will come that "they" will attempt to impose an Orwellian vocabulary upon the religious and sacred terms. We should resist the destruction of our language.

 

Isolating "hold fast the form of sound words" without context might lead to the above interpretation and applications. But it clear that the words Paul has written to Timothy in chapter One of his second letter of advise to the young man refer literally to only those "sound words" that he has "heard of me". These might be or include spoken words (since the words are "heard of" not "read from").

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. (KJV) ​

The original written "form" would have been Greek. Should we "hold fast" to the Greek then?

 

The method (hermanuetic) I prefer to apply when reading anything (Bible or otherwise) is the grammatic-historic approach. Basically, this means that the words written by author are interpretated within ordinary grammatic rules, with historical differences taken into account. It attempts to understand the authors meaning as it was intended to the original audience. Some knowledge concerning the historic period can assist in a deeper or clearer understanding.

So, when reading the Bible the words selected by the translator or editor would be best understood with the meaning at the time in which they were composed. Ancient, or even archaic, works must be thoroughly researched with outside resources (dictionaries, etc.) to arrive at a highly certain interpretation.

 

2 Timothy 1:13 IMO is not about maintaining strict definitions of words, "frozen" at a given point in time. Rather, it is Paul's exhortation to Timothy to the pattern of sound teaching...shaped by the character and the very nature of the Lord Jesus Christ.