Sound Words

The context indicates that Paul was writing to his young friend Timothy, and encouraging him not to be enticed away by fear from believing the gospel. In the previous verse, 2 Timothy 1.12, Paul says that he himself is suffering for the sake of the gospel, yet God is able to keep him. Immediately he goes on to talk of holding fast to sound words. Would Timothy, on reading that letter, have thought to himself, "Ah! I know just what Paul means. He's telling me that in a few hundred years time, there will be a language called "English", and God's Word will be translated into it. From the time that translation is made, none of the English words it contains must ever change their usage or meaning." ?

But "gay" and "marriage" were not new English words invented by the tranlators of the bible into English. Those words were already in existence. Certainly, part of "holding fast the form of sound words" is holding to what God says about that institution represented in the English language by the word "marriage", but that is quite different from saying that the word itself must not change. If it did, we as Christians would have to say "carriages" instead of "luggage", and we would not be able to use "carriages" to mean the passenger compartments on a railway train, or horse-drawn ceremonial vehicals. We would have to use the word "meat" to mean "all kinds of food", rather than the flesh of animals. And "coasts" in Christian usage could not be used only to mean the seaside, for in the times when the AV/KJV was traslated, "coasts" meant "regions". Is it wrong (in your view) for Christians to use the word "penny" to mean a piece of British or American money, when the AV/KJV only uses it of the Roman coin, the denarius?

No, of course not. But as over the years the number of changes builds up, with English words going out of use or changing their meaning substantially, there will be such a need from time to time.

As I said in another thread, most of the changes in English usage were not brought about by God-haters wanting to go against the teaching of His Word. The fact that words like "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "concupiscence", "durst", "emerods", "greaves", and "neesings" are no longer in everyday use is not due to the rising tide of atheism.

What I am really saying is this: You seem to be talking about two different things here:

1. Changes in society's concepts of certain biblical doctrines, such as marriage, homosexuality, the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ, and so on. These things are wrong as they go against the teaching of scripture.

2. Changes in the English language (whether spelling, grammar, word use) that come about over the passage of time, and are rarely the result of evil intent. The change in the meaning of the English word "prevent" from "go before" to "stop" is an example.

 

Language Cop, responding:

"It would appear that especially David Lamb, as well as Scarlett, Ed E., C4K, and franklinmonroe have well covered this subject, so I will go back out on patrol!"

Signed, Language Cop

Ed

 

Evidently, the makers of "The Flintstones" had something to do with defining "gay" for awhile. For years, their theme song ended with "We'll have a GAY old time!"

The KJV, as other versions before and after it, was written in the English of its time. I simply do not understand those who say we shouldn't use God's word written in OUR English. Furthermore, I'm not striving to understand them; I KNOW THEY'RE WRONG, & that's all I needta understand.

Just the other day, I received a childish email from a Fundamentalist "brother" who triedta remind me that the same men who would change "the Bible"(in his case, the KJV) wouldn't dare thinka changing one word of a Shakespeare work. I shot back that there's a vast difference...that Will died in 1616, thus freezing his worx in time, while GOD not only lives on, but is still in charge, and is jolly well able to provide His word as HE chooses.

Modern English readers often mess up by applying modern meanings while reading an older work such as the KJV. Thus, when one reads a passage in the KJV such as Psalm 88:13 "But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee", one might think David could somehow not allow God to do something. Many don't know that in 1611 "go before" was a proper meaning for 'prevent'.

God's word is ongoing; its Author still oversees it, updating it as He causes/allows the language to change.. Thus, it's better to read it in OUR language than to hafta learn an obsolete form of English which we'd use nowhere else except while watching a Shakespeare play.

 

Why did the people of 1611 not study to see what the existing English bibles of their day meant instead of coming with a new one?

 

Then that would make the dictionary our final authority instead of the Bible.

If you have to have a dictionary by your side to understand the translation of the Bible you are reading, you need a translation you can understand.

 

You shouldn't need one...
But ask a new Christian what the word, 'prevent" means and you will see.

In order to understand this word in the KJV, you have to have a KJV dictionary. Otherwise you have a false doctrine...

And what about all those other outdated words...
I know people that just skip them, because they don't know what they mean...

Then you have bad grammar in the KJV... more than one fish is still "fish" not fishes as is found in John 6:9.

Not to mention that English is limited when translating Greek into it...
(3 Greek words for the English word Love) I have yet to see any version address this in John 21.

Add all of this up, and it is a recipe for false doctrine.

When you translate the Bible into any receiving language, it should be readable, and understandable...

And the 17th century English is not to many people today.

 

Rufus_1611: //If it was about "sound teaching"
and not about words, isn't there another word
that could've been used to represent
"sound teaching"? Why didn't Paul use that
other word?//

Paul used the best Greek word
in the First Century (0001AD to 0100AD) to represent the 21st
Century (2001-2100) 'teaching' which
was the proper form of 'logos'. The Translators of the
KJV1611 Edition used the correct English for the early
17th Century (17th century = 1601-1700): 'words'.
As I showed above, the correct English phrase for the
21st Century (2001-2100) is 'teaching'.
'Doctrine' would also work nicely.

The very fact we are having this discussion shows
the necessity of changing the English so people
can understand. If we have to learn an alien language
why not learn ancient Greek instead of early modern
English.

 

Hey, Rufus, 'fore ya go callin' folks try the Cotton Patch Version and see if it's to your likin'. I'm not sure it's still in print but ya can prob'ly find it somewhere online.

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

(Said with tongue in cheek - I really didn't think you meant it, Rufus.)

 

Do you really expect a realistic answer to this question? It might upset some who seem to see one version as vastly superior (if not entirely perfect), to another!

Ed

 

Rufus_1611: //The word "prevent" appears in the Holy Bible 17 times. If that is not enough context to figure out what the word means, then a dictionary is not going to help.//


I find 'prevent' 7 times in the KJV1611: 6 in the OT, 1 in the NT.
I find 'preuent' 7 times in the KJV1611: 6 in the OT, 1 in the NT.
7+7=14 :laugh:

 

"Good response!"

Signed, Language Cop

Ed

 

Funny, when I do a search on the word "prevent" in esword, it only comes up with 7 times...

2 Questions...

1. What verses am I missing?
2. In which verses does it mean "to go before" and in which verses does it mean, "to stop"?

Surely you see the need to have a better word in today's time.
In the first verse below, does it mean ""to go before", or "stop"?

(Job 3:12) Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?

(Psalms 59:10) The God of my mercy shall prevent me: God shall let me see [my desire] upon mine enemies.

(Psalms 79:8) O remember not against us former iniquities: let thy tender mercies speedily prevent us: for we are brought very low.

(Psalms 88:13) But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee.

(Psalms 119:148) Mine eyes prevent the [night] watches, that I might meditate in thy word.

(Amos 9:10) All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

(1 Thessalonians 4:15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

 

ok.. I see.. what program did you use to get the variations?