Wrong Renderings In The A.V.

If one doesn't study on how to plow a garden his work will prove fruitless.

If Timothy hadn't beed admonished to study the word of God his efforts would have been fruitless as the young pastor he was in that time.

The word "study" is much more "equiped" to present the meaning of the passage than simply to "labor"

Even labor with holding to prescribed studies can very well cause sloppy work.

We work according to precept to accomplish an expected end. This requires we study.

To study to be quiet means to know when to speak up and when to simply keep your mouth shut.:wavey:

 

What really shows is how modernists attack others who hold to the preservation of God's word by incorporating their lies into their remarks.

When one compares the modern word to that of what modernists demand to be archaic, it opens the mind to consider other Scriptures as how they are in harmonic relation to each other.

Since it's the modernists rant about words being "archaic", then why is it they always revert back to Ancient Greek and Hebrew to try and explain away the word of God?:laugh:

We down here in Dixie call that Shootin' urself in th' foot!

 

Sorry, Sal, your argument simply doesn't hold water in the face of the now-archaic use of 'study' in 1611 & the definition of the Greek 'spoudazo', which is "work diligently, strive". And that's what 'study' meant in its 1611 uses in the KJV's NT, according to the Greek. In EVERY other rendering of spoudazo in the Greek, the KJV renders it "work, be diligent, labor", etc. In your zeal to support the false KJVO doctrine, you're abandoning common sense.

While one might work diligently while studying, they are still different terms in current usage. While the KJV was correct in its use of 'study' in those 2 verses, according to one of the then-in-use definitions of 'study', newer versions are just as correct to say 'strive' or 'work diligently'.

 

Why? Were you getting lonesome and wanting company??

Not that I have ever said, before this post, at least on the Baptist Board, that the Word of God is "political" [even though it most definitely IS "political" virtually from the outset, in Genesis and Job (although the Word of God is not in any way, shape, form, or fashion "Politically Correct," in any manner, whatsoever, with the 'Political Correctness' that we find in our own day)], the Bible is "political," in that it says definite things about our responses to 'kings' and other authorities, and most of the OT concerns a time when there was a definite political structure, in place, namely a monarchy. The NT events and writings all take place during the time of a 'World Empire', as well.

You and I would agree on the second thing, here, I'd say, in that the Word of God is not " "adjustable' (sic) TUR INTERPRETATIONS." (Not to worry, Salamander. Simply due to the number of opinions you offer, merely by the 'the Law of Averages,' you have to get some of them right!)

But keep trying, anyway. Your 'Batting Average' could still get lower, in this.

However, none of us can completely divorce our own understanding from "OUR INTERPRETATIONS", if only due "TUR INTERPRETATIONS."

Not exactly! Hence I disagree, here. Your own words which characterized Rippon's post as one "using deplorable reference material," when, in fact, most of what he was posting were various renderings of particular passages from various versions (where I notice, you did not hesitate to subject the words, both as found in the KJV/KJB, and in the versions he cited, 'TO YOUR INTERPRETATIONS') where his citings merely happened to be renderings, from the Bible, that were different from the KJV renderings. Different renderings do not necessarily equal 'wrong,' less than "the whole picture," or any failure to "compare Scripture with Scripture" (although the general tenor of your posts could only lead one to conclude that you do not actually think that "modern versions" are, in fact, Scripture). And, I add, that versions which are not 'manufactured,' solely in order to support a particular position, such as the NWT, for the most notable example, are certainly not deserving of being called "deplorable reference material!"

True, and this characterization includes the KJV, just as other legitimate English versions.

Ed

 

I agree absolutely. The vast majority of 'wrong readings in the 1611' are simply wrong to our ears, not to that time period. Oh, IMHO, of course

 

For most members of the BB, including myself, shouldn't that properly read IM(not so-)HO?

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Just TOO good an opportunity to pass up!

Ed
[/FONT]

 

Hmmm, we hold to God preserving His word and you take it into your own hands, now that's a thought!

A "pseudo-piety"?:laugh: Your words ensnare you. You claim the KJB to be only Anglican while those of us who hold to the KJB are very far from Anglican. Something's very wrong with your premise there, Bob.

I have shown the discrepncies in the work resource by Rippon to PROVE the invalid ideals of that author. Nothing Anglican about it.

Only holding to less of the word of God in modern versions by the usage of watered down and misleading verbage is utter nonsense and willful blindness.

The only clouds are in your coffee and it got there by the infusion of modernist's creamer.

The proof is that I showed the lackluster of the "points" offered in the book when compared to that which is tried and true/ The KJB. The proof stands that just by simple comparison and open reasoning the KJB is maligned by attacks against it and those who hold to it as God's Perfect word.

"Pseudo-piety" :wavey: I guess it is viewed that way when some one points out the gross errors held onto by modernists.:thumbs:

 

:tear: A fine example of the willful ingnorance and willful illiteracy running rampant in our society today.

People like you will demand change while not honestly even being able to count out the change of $ 20 bill from a purchase amount of $ 18.73 including tax.

Study meant then what it means now, well, except in the convoluted mind that concurs with ignorance and illiteracy.

Why would God want me to "strive" which denotes contention vs study which incorporates striving to gain knowledge adverse to ignorance?

Why should I accept "work diligently" when "study" already has induced into its meaning to work diligently in my studies?

You need to study this out a little further, roby, then, and only then, will your studies prove diligent as you strive to increase knowledge by your study.

Get to work! err, study!:wavey:

 

Will the REAL 'modernist' please stand up?

Let's see the definition of 'modernist': (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modernism)

Modernism

1: a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times
2often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements
3: modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice ; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression

I would suggest that Onlyism is the new modernism! It fits the definitions- peculiar to modern times, a tendency to devalue the supernatural elements of the preservation of God's Word, and a philosophy of translations that is modern also.

 

This thread was supposed to be about specific 1611 renderings. It is not and therefore is closed.