Sound Words

I find "prevent" and "prevented", each one time in my Bible and in both instances the word is used as we use it today, in the sense of 'hinder' or 'restrain'. And those words are used several times in my Bible, yet some seem to 'want' (another word not often used in accordance with 17th century English) to 'prevent' (Dittto!) anyone from using the terms as we normally do, today.

Somehow, I cannot fathom anyone "lacking to precede" the use of normal language. One cannot be consistent, who holds this sort of view, if he or she "explains" any word in any version!

Ed

 

Your last sentence, which I embolded, is exactly and specifically on point, as NT Koine Greek, and OT Hebrew and Chaldee, would be considered as "ancient" and an "alien" languages to most English speakers! And they are the only languages in which God chose to give us the Scriptures, not 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th 17th , 18th, 19th, 20th, and/or 21st Century English, Japenese, Spanish, German, Latin, nor any other "alien" language! All these are "alien" to God's revelation, in the languages in which he gave it!

Ed

 

If we have to learn an alien language why not learn ancient Greek instead of early modern English. - Ed Edwards

Obviously, learning the ancient languages would remove all the issues resulting directly from the translation process.

Seriously, why didn't the Christian church of the 3rd and 4th Centuries pass on and maintain the New Testament in it's original Greek form, rather than allowing the Latin to eventually replace it? The Latin translations were part the early Catholic power-grab. Today, why not raise our children on reading the Koine Greek Testament?

 

In fact, the language style used in the A.V. in 1611 was somewhat retro-early modern English: "thee" and "ye" were well-established Elizabethan terms already falling out of favor during the reign of James the First.

Early Modern English refers to the stage of the English language used from about the end of the Middle English period (the latter half of the 1400s) to 1650. Thus, the first edition of the King James Bible and the works of William Shakespeare both belong to the late phase of Early Modern English, although the King James Bible intentionally keeps some archaisms that were not common even when it was published. (Wikipedia)​

 

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 KJV1769: 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: not 17

 

This should be quickly recognized as an invalid argument. Versions are not only the result of updating the language; there are several other reasons.

But to address the question directly: first, there may not an overabundance of Shakespearian versions because it is uneccessary to translate it at all (he wrote in English, duh). I am not an expert or authority on Shakepeare, but I do know there actually are multiple versions of some of his works (from variants existing in manuscripts).

Second, the Odyssey and the Iliad do not survive in thousands of documents, as the New Testament does, which could partially explain lesser numbers of versions. In addition, these ancient poems do not profess to contain divine revelation which can been re-interpreted by means of translation.

 

Does anyone know where e-sword gets its KJV text? It seems to be 'enhanced'.

 

It was corrected the second time.

IT was only a spelling correction,
i'd spelt '1769' as '1611'. :tonofbricks:

 

There's even a Klingon version if you want to take a look.

http://klv.mrklingon.org/

And some folks think I came from outer space! :laugh:

 

I obtained some of Clarence Jordan's Cotton Patch Version books very inexpensively from Ebay for the purpose of having an example of an 'odd' translation. The author himself plainly stated that "obviously the Cotton Patch version must not be used as a historical text." It was issued in portions (such as Luke & Acts, Paul's Epistles, etc), and the only the NT (incomplete: he didn't do Mark, or Revelation). It is available to read online at http://rockhay.tripod.com/cottonpatch/.

 

I have recently started 1 Samuel in my personal reading and was struck with these verses --

Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:
And he had two wives; the name of the one [was] Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. (1 Samuel 1:1,2 KJV)​

God's perfect intention was that marriage would be monogamous, but it is clear that both these women were considered true "wives". There are other examples (Lamech in Genesis 4, Jacob, Esau, David, etc). God also originally created everything "good", but we live in a fallen world.

 

I haven't read this whole topic so forgive me.

I have found that the term "sound words" emphasizes the words heard have incorporated meaning with their linguistic impact. IOW, words have an implicit sound to them to impact the mind and heart of the hearer.

I know Gail Riplinger is a "cuss word" to many here on BB, nevermind where you think she is off-base. But she has a very intellectual approach to the linguistic study of sound comprehension when considering word changes in our English language when compared to other languages.

Mrs. Riplinger is not off on a deserted island by herself on this idea. Many linguists concur with her in this particular study.

To "control" a people one must influence the way they think. Words having an original meaning being made "archaic" ( which "archaic" is a misnomer), has always been originated by the serpent.

What God said was final, until the serpent suggested differently.

:godisgood:

And if Jesus was a bricklayer:tonofbricks:

Aren't those 12 bricks representing the 12 tribes falling upon the head of the serpent ?

 

Would you have said this in 1611? My question remains - "Who decides when the words had the right 'sound'?"

BTW - words don't sound the same when spoken in England as they do when spoken in America. If it is indeed this is what is meant by "sound words" then everyone in America needs to change the sounds they make when they read the Bible.

 

Agree w/C4K...

In fact, following that reasoning (evolving language is somehow wrong), shouldn't we all speak some form of Semitic language?

 

We know what is meant by what we hear, but to fully understand the intent of the printed word one must incorporate a dictionary along with the context of how the word is used.

Sound differences of different dialects are not altogether different.

Take the word "immorality", define it. Compare where in newer versions when it has been submitted in the place of fornication or adultery. Notice any difference? Of course, if you're honest.

The latter words only fit under the heading of immorality. God is always specific when it comes to calling sin by its name, wouldn't you agree?